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 charges.

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:

2.1 The respondent no. 2-original complainant, who is presently engaged as practicing advocate at Patan, was earlier proprietor of Navkar Chemists and Banas Pharma Distributor was in the business of pharmaceuticals. The present petitioners are the ex-office bearers of Patan Chemists’ Association, against whom the complainant has filed the impugned private complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan on 27.02.2007, and by order dated 27.02.2007, the learned Magistrate ordered inquiry under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which was registered as M-Case No. 4/2007.

2.2 It is stated in the complaint that, earlier, the complainant filed one RTPE Case No. 25/2004 against the office bearers before Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘MRTP’ for short). It is alleged that accused nos.2 and 3 had placed translated copy of the letter written by the Association before the MRTP Commission and upon order passed by the Commission, produced one reply dated 15.03.1999, which is allegedly given to complainant-respondent no. 2, wherein two pages were changed by the Association.

2.3 The complainant had sent reply dated 08.03.1999 and reply dated 15.03.1999 to private Forensic examiner, and as per the report, it is alleged that the office bearers of Association have forged the said reply at Patan and thereby committed offence under sections 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 114, 34 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. The petitioners are the office bearers of Patan Chemist Association and North Gujarat Chemist Association. The opponent-complainant had moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan stating that he was having the business of medicine in the name of ‘Navkar Chemist’ and ‘Banas Pharma Distributors’ in the district of Patan. The association has given a lifetime boycott; as a result his business got closed.

3.1 The complaint, which was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate is with the fact that the accused nos.3 and 4, Nikhil Manjulbhai Raval and Mukeshbhai Mangalbhai Patel, had given the reply dated 08.03.1999 to his notice, and complainant had produced the true copy of reply before the MRTP commission, New Delhi. After the notice for appearance from the MRTP Commission, the accused produced the reply in MRTP to RTP Case No. 25/2004, and in the reply at paragraph no. 18.2 they had contended as under:

“The contents of Para 18.2 are incorrect and denied and the Petitioner is put to the strict proof the same. It is submitted that the Complainant herein has replaced true contents of the letter written by the then President of Patan Chemist Association by replacing the relevant pages of the letter. A true translated copy of the actual letter written by the then President/Secretary, Patan Association is being filed herewith marked as Annexure-3.”

3.2 By the reply the pr