IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution on the basis of a private complaint for offences under sections 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code is not maintainable. Such complaint must be from the appropriate Civil Court as per Section 340 read with section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

JUDGMENT

Ranganath Misra, J. - The short question arising to this appeal by special leave is whether in the absence of necessary complaint by the Civil Court where a money receipt alleged to have been forged was produced, prosecution for offences punishable under sections 461 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code would be maintainable. The accused are the appellants and they challenge the dismissal of their application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The appellants arc father and son respectively. They took a printing press from the 1st respondent in terms of an agreement dated December 3, 1980, with a view to carrying on the printing business. The agreement stipulated that the appellants would have to deposit Rs. 20,000/- with the 1st respondent and pay Rs. 500/- p.m. as also 50% of the net profits to 1st respondent. Dispute arose between the parties over the compliance of the terms of the agreement whereupon the 1st respondent filed against the appellants O.S. No. 609/81 for mandatory injunction and O.S. No. 11401 81 for recovery of damages. Appellants filed O.S. No. 358/81 for refund of Rs. 20,000/- p. claimed to have been deposited with 1st respondent and for recovery of Rs. 8638/- on the footing that the same had been paid to 1st respondent by cheques and. in cash. Along with their plaint appellants produced the original contract as also the money receipt for Rs. 20,000/- in support of the claim in the suit. After production of the money receipt in Court, 1st respondent filed a complaint against the appellants alleging forgery of his signature on the money receipt and thereby commission of offences punishable under sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code. On receiving summonses from the Court, the appellants objected to maintainability if the criminal action and later moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for quashing the said proceedings by contending that in the absence of complaint from the Court the prosecution was barred in view of section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code. In support of this contention reliance was placed on section 340 of the Code. The High Court referred to the provisions of sections 463, 465, 467, 471 and 474 of the Penal Code and observed:

"From the above provisions, it is quite manifest that the offence which is mentioned in the complaint carries greater punishment, namely, to years imprisonment, whereas under section 461, Indian Penal Code the punishment is infinitely lessor than the one under section 467, namely 2 years or fine or both. That apart in a case reported in 1979 Crl. L.R. at 228, it has been held by the Gujarat High Court that the offences laid down under sections 474 and 471, Indian Penal Code are distinct. In that case it was contended that a complaint by A to police under section 474 that R was in possession of forged documents with intention to use them in Court proceedings and thereafter B producing documents in Court and thereby committing offence under section 471 did not wipe out the offence under section 474. The High Court held under these circumstances that the Magistrate can proceed with case under section 474 against. B grounding the reason that section 195(l)(b)(ii) is not attracted.

The penal provisions as it is fairly settled ought to be interpreted very strictly and therefore on the foregoing analysis I have no hesitation in holding that section 463 cannot be construed to include section 467 as well and, therefore, certainly it is competent for the Magistrate to take cognizance of and try the same as it is needless to follow the case. Hence the contention on the basis of the provisions in section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fails and the same is rejected."

3. There is no dispute that the alleged forged document was produced in the suit brought by the appellants. Section 340 of the Cede provides:

"340. (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwis