Back
GITA GOPI
AMIT JAYANTILAL SHAH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the legality of the charge framing against the petitioners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding legal provisions and implications. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observations on due process and judicial authority. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. ratio decidendi regarding the bar on cognizance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion and decision of the revision application. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
GITA GOPI, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 27.08.2021 passed below Exh.16 in Criminal Case No. 3624 of 2021, rejecting the application prayed for not to frame charge, and challenging Exh.17 the framing of charge. Further prayer has been made for holding that the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the alleged offences including the offences under sections 193 and 471 of I.P.C. based on private complaint filed by respondent no. 2.
2. The facts, in nutshell, are narrated herein-below:
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 ....
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.
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.
Stage of taking of cognizance of the offence and issuing process, and the stage when the charge is to be framed against the accused or alternatively the accused is to be discharged are different stag....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restriction imposed by Section 195 of Cr.P.C. on the power of the Court to take cognizance of certain offences, and the interpretation of 'fals....
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.
The court confirmed that presenting a forged document constitutes a serious offense warranting prosecution under relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the need for judicial integrity.
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....
(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....
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
