1960 Supreme(Pat) 201

PATNA HIGH COURT
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
Ramautar Mistri
Versus
Rajindra Singh
Decided On : NOVEMBER 23, 1960

The mere filing of a forged document is enough to bring a person within the mischief of Sec. 471, Penal Code, even if it is not actually used as evidence in a court.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 476 - Complaint - Filing of forged document - Jurisdiction of court - Section 195(1)(c) - Interpretation - Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Applicability.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for filing a complaint against the plaintiff-opposite party, for his prosecution under Sections 471 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The plaintiff had filed a patta, purported to have been executed in 1906, along with a petition, stating that he had found out this document as well as other documents from old records, and, therefore, he was filing the disputed patta as well as other documents in Court, which may be taken in evidence and kept with the record. The petitioner filed a petition praying to send the above-mentioned patta for examination to the expert at Nasik. This petition, however, was rejected on the ground that, according to the plaintiff, who filed the patta, it did not relate to the land in suit, and, therefore, it was not a relevant document for the purpose of deciding the title and possession of the plaintiff with regard to the disputed land. The suit was, thereafter, decided by the Additional Munsif, who dismissed it. The petitioner filed a petition, under Sec. 476 Code of Criminal Procedure, for filing a complaint against the opposite party not before the First Court of the Munsif, where the disputed patta was filed, and, before whom the suit was instituted and then pending, but, before the Additional Munsif, to whom the suit was transferred subsequently and who had decided the suit. On this application a miscellaneous case was started, and, thereafter, on 15-2-1958 as the Additional Court of the Munsif, before whom the application under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, was made, was abolished, it was transferred to the 2nd Court of the Munsif of the same place, according to the order of the District Judge. The learned Munsif, 2nd Court, held the enquiry and on 8-1-59 allowed the application of the petitioner and held that a prima facia case has been made out against the opposite party, and, therefore, a complaint should be made before the Subdivisional Magistrate, Hajipur, against the opposite party for his prosecution under Sections 471 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. He, accordingly directed a complaint to be filed. An appeal against the above order was then taken, by the plaintiff opposite party, to the court of the District Judge, Muzaffarpur, who, by his order of the 17th February, 1960, set aside the order of the learned Munsif and refused to file a complaint, as he held that no prima facie case had been made out, and that there was no reasonable chance of conviction of the opposite party, and, further that it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to allow the complaint to be filed against, the opposite party as directed by the learned Munsif because the petitioner wanted just to satisfy his own sense of grudge. He also entertained doubts about the competency of the Munsif, 2nd Court, to file complaint as contemplated by Sec. 476, Code of Criminal Procedure.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the mere filing of a forged document is enough to bring the party filing it within the mischief of Sec. 471, Penal Code, even if it is not actually used as evidence in a court. The court also held that the Munsif 2nd Court to whom the case was transferred, on the abolition of the Additional Court of the Munsif before whom it was originally pending, was quite competent to hold the enquiry under Section 476 Cr. P.C. and make the complaint thereunder. However, the court held that the District Judge had no power, under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to transfer the proceeding under Section 476 Cr. P.C. from the Additional Munsif to the Second Munsif, and that the 2nd Court of the Munsif, on such transfer, did not get the jurisdiction to make an enquiry and, thereafter, to make a complaint, under Sec. 471, Penal Code under Sec. 476, Cr. P.C.

Issues: 1. Whether the mere filing of a forged document is enough to bring a person within the mischief of Sec. 471, Penal Code, even if it is not actually used as evidence in a court? 2. Whether the Munsif 2nd Court to whom the case was transferred, on the abolition of the Additional Court of the Munsif before whom it was originally pending, was quite competent to hold the enquiry under Section 476 Cr. P.C. and make the complaint thereunder? 3. Whether the District Judge had power, under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to transfer the proceeding under Section 476 Cr. P.C. from the Additional Munsif to the Second Munsif? 4. Whether the 2nd Court of the Munsif, on such transfer, got the jurisdiction to make an enquiry and, thereafter, to make a complaint, under Sec. 471, Penal Code under Sec. 476, Cr. P.C.?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the mere filing of a forged document is enough to bring a person within the mischief of Sec. 471, Penal Code, even if it is not actually used as evidence in a court. 2. Yes, the Munsif 2nd Court to whom the case was transferred, on the abolition of the Additional Court of the Munsif before whom it was originally pending, was quite competent to hold the enquiry under Section 476 Cr. P.C. and make the complaint thereunder. 3. No, the District Judge had no power, under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to transfer the proceeding under Section 476 Cr. P.C. from the Additional Munsif to the Second Munsif. 4. No, the 2nd Court of the Munsif, on such transfer, did not get the jurisdiction to make an enquiry and, thereafter, to make a complaint, under Sec. 471, Penal Code under Sec. 476, Cr. P.C.

Final Decision: The application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.