Back
2009 Supreme(Gau) 43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.
Runu Devi – Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam – Respondent
Decided On: 21.01.2009
The interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code and the distinction between Sections 417 and 420 IPC were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 471/420 IPC - Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 471, 420, 417, 195(1)(b)(ii), 190, 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code, the bar on taking cognizance of offences relating to documents given in evidence in a court, and the distinction between Sections 417 and 420 IPC. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the sustainability of the FIR, which led to the registration of a case against the petitioner under Sections 471/420 IPC. The petitioner was accused of forging a death certificate and committing the offence of cheating.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code and the distinction between Sections 417 and 420 IPC. It concluded that the FIR could not be quashed, but directed the investigating agency to correct the penal provisions of cheating by replacing Section 420 IPC with Section 417 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sustainability of the FIR, the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code, and the distinction between Sections 417 and 420 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code and the distinction between Sections 417 and 420 IPC, as well as the application of these legal provisions to the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court directed the investigating agency to correct the penal provisions of cheating by replacing Section 420 IPC with Section 417 IPC, but did not quash the FIR.
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. By making this application, under Section 482, Cr.PC, the petitioner has put to challenge the sustainability of the First Information Report ('FIR'), which has led to registration of Jorhat Police Station Case No. 417/2008, under Sections 471/420 IPC, against the petitioner, as accused.
2. I have heard Mr. R.D. Lall, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
3. The case, as made out against the accused-petitioner, in the FIR, is, in brief, thus: While GR Case No. 647/2007 was pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, a petition was allegedly filed, on 16.7.2008, by the present petitioner informing the court that the petitioner's son, Tridip Barkataky, who was an accused in the said case, had died. Along with her said petition, the petitioner is also alleged to have submitted a photostat of death certificate as regards the death of her said son, the certificate having been shown to have been issued by Gauhati Medical College Hospital. By making the said petition, the petitioner allegedly prayed for closing the said case against her son, accused Tridip Barkataky. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not, however, act upon the said petition and, instead, issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against accused, Tridip Barkataky, whereupon the said accused was arrested and produced in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Satisfied that the petitioner has forged the death certificate and also committed offence of cheating, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, as informant, lodged the FIR, which has led to the registration of the case against the accused-petitioner and it is this FIR and the investigation, following the registration of the FIR, which stand impugned in this petition for quashing.
4. The registration of the FIR under Sections 471 and 420, IPC has been challenged on two grounds. The first ground of challenge is this : In the present case, the forgery, if any, was committed in respect of a death certificate, which had been filed in a criminal proceeding in a court and, hence, the police is not competent to register a case in respect of such a forged document nor is it permissible for the police to carry on investigation on the basis of such FIR, because Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code') bars a court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 471, IPC, when such offence is committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court unless the complaint is, in writing, of that court, where the forgery was committed, or some other court to which the court, where the forgery was committed, is subordinate.
5. In the present case, it contended that even if the police, on completion of investigation, submits charge sheet against the accused-petitioner for his prosecution under Section 471, IPC, no court would be able to take cognizance of the offence under Section 471, IPC inasmuch as taking of such cognizance would be barred, under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code, in the absence of any complaint, in writing, of the court, wherein the forged document was produced or given in evidence. The second ground of attack is that even if the contents of the FIR are assumed to be true, the same do not disclose commission of any offence within the meaning of Section 420, IPC and, at best, the allegations, made in the FIR, constitute an offence under Section 417, IPC.
6. As the registration of a case, against the accused-petitioner, under Section 471, IPC, on the basis of the said FIR, is under challenge, in this criminal petition, on the ground that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code does not permit registration of such a case, it is necessary to take note of the provisions of Section 195. This section (Section 195) is, therefore, reproduced hereinbelow:
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offence
