Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 1235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
I.A. Ansari, J.
Rajendra Sahay – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary and Others – Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 300 of 2016
Decided On : 29-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal.
For the Respondents: Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav and Mr. Rohit Mishra.
The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only when the offences enumerated therein have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, when the document was in custodia legis.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 195, Section 340 - The court discussed the interpretation of the provisions of Section 195 and Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to the filing of forged documents in court proceedings. The court held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only when the offences enumerated therein have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, when the document was in custodia legis. The court directed that the complaint lodged by the petitioner be treated as a First Information Report and a case be registered accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of a letter postponing the initiation of a criminal case against accused persons due to pending civil litigations. The petitioner claimed that the accused had forged a death certificate and sought action against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only when the offences enumerated therein have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, when the document was in custodia legis. The court directed that the complaint lodged by the petitioner be treated as a First Information Report and a case be registered accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether an enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was warranted when a forged document is filed in a court proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 195 and Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only when the offences enumerated therein have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, when the document was in custodia legis.
Final Decision: The court directed that the complaint lodged by the petitioner be treated as a First Information Report and a case be registered accordingly.
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. By this writ application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated, 14.03.2012, issued by the respondent No. 3, namely, Under Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, annexing the letter, dated 03.03.2012, of the respondent No. 5, namely, Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, whereby the request of the petitioner for initiation of criminal case against the accused persons has been postponed on the ground of pendency of civil litigations between the parties as also for direction to the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to ensure registration of a Police Case against the accused persons concerned, on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, vide letter dated, 15.01.2011 and 10.09.2012, in the light of the report, dated 01.09.2008, of the respondent No. 8. The petitioner further seeks declaration that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, do not bar initiation of criminal prosecution/investigation/trial during the pendency of civil litigation.
2. The facts, leading to the filing of the present writ petition, are, in brief, thus:
(i) The petitioner claimed that he has a big family and for partition of the ancestral assets of the family, there was a Partition Suit bearing No. 258 of 1970, which was filed by the uncle of the petitioner, namely, Prof. Satya Narayan Sahay. The said suit was decreed and, accordingly, the parties to the suit got their respective shares in the ancestral property.
(ii) Thereafter, one Ugra Tara Devi, daughter of late Krishna Deo Jha, claimed some portion of the ancestral property of the petitioner saying the said property to have been purchased by her father, Late Krishna Deo Jha, who was also a party in the said Partition Suit No. 258 of 1970. She also claimed that due to omission to substitute, in the suit aforementioned, the legal heirs of late Krishna Deo Jha, who died in the year 1980, the final decree, passed in Partition Suit No. 258 of 1970, was null and void. Accordingly, she and others filed Title Suit No. 140 of 1993, in the Civil Court, Madhubani, seeking declaration that the final decree, passed in Partition Suit, was null and void and not binding upon the parties concerned.
(iii) The aforementioned Title Suit No. 140 of 1993 came to be dismissed by the Sub-Judge III, Jhanjhapur, by judgment and decree, dated 14.02.2008.
(iv) For the first time, Ugra Tara Devi and others had produced, in Title Suit No. 140 of 1993, aforementioned, death certificate of Krishna Deo Jha, which was purportedly issued by the Registrar, Lakhnaur Block, mentioning therein the date of death of Krishna Deo Jha as 23.11.1980.
(v) Having learnt about the said forged document i.e. with regard to the death of Krishna Deo Jha, the petitioner herein, filed an application, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jhanjharpur, seeking information as regards the veracity of the said forged certificate. Though, initially, no information was given, yet when the petitioner approached the State Information Commission, respondent No. 8 herein provided the said information by letter, dated 01.09.2008, accompanied by a report dated 21.07.2008, which was forwarded by the Panchayat Secretary, Bihat.
(vi) Against the dismissal of Title Suit No. 140 of 1993, the said Ugra Tara Devi and others filed Title Appeal No. 39/45 of 2008 in the Court of the District Judge, Madhubani. The appeal was, eventually, allowed by the Additional District Judge-II, Madhubani, by judgment and decree, dated 27.08.2009.
(vii) The petitioner, then, challenged the judgment and decree, dated 27.08.2009, of the Additional District Judge, Madhubani, passed in Title Appeal No. 39/45 of 2008, in the High Court by filing Second Appeal No. 459 of 2009, which is still pending adjudication.
(viii) The petitioner, once again, approached the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
