Back
M. S. SONAK, VALMIKI SA MENEZES
Anthony Roque Dsouza – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Dhaval Zaveri with Mr. Nehal Govekar for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Allan F. C. Andrade and Mr. Mark Valadares h/f Mr. Richard Almeida for respondent no.3.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. This petition seeks quashing of FIR No.178/2023 dated 11.09.2023 registered at the Mapusa Police Station (impugned FIR) inter alia on the following grounds:-
ii) The impugned FIR alleges the forging of some documents by unknown persons, yet the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for such forgery by invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This, according to the petitioner, is impermissible in law and amounts to an abuse of process;
iii) From the allegations in the complaint, on a demurrer, offences punishable under Sections 193 to 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) (both inclusive) in relation to proceedings before the Revenue Court are made out. Therefore,
The court held that allegations of forgery and cheating in the FIR do not have a predominantly civil profile and are not barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., thus the FIR cannot be quashed.
The court ruled that charges under IPC Sections 193 and 471 require a prior written complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., highlighting the jurisdictional limits on the Magistrate's authority to frame ....
The court clarified that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. limits cognizance of forgery only if it occurs after the document has been submitted in court.
Section 415 of IPC mandates that there should be inducement from hands of accused to victim to part with any property and transaction should be tainted with dishonest intention right from its outset.
Petitioner has not been confined for illegal purpose amounting to commission of offence. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the liberty granted to him by filing the complaint under Sect....
The need for prima facie evidence and the expediency in the interests of justice before initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
(1) Perjury – Section 195(1)(b)(ii) read with Section 340(1), Cr.P.C. will only apply in respect of offences which are committed during the time when document concerned was custodia legis or in custo....
A valid written complaint is required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. to initiate criminal proceedings for forgery related to evidence presented in court, highlighting procedural safeguards against wrongfu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
