Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2364
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Surendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 5735/2022
Decided On : 13-09-2022
Deepak Choudhary, Advocate., for the Appellant
M.S. Bhati, Public Prosecutor., for the Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the applicability of the bar contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii) to the case.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482, 195, Indian Penal Code - Sections 205, 420, 468, 471 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which restricts the Court from taking cognizance of certain offences without a written complaint from the Court or authorized officer. The court also interpreted the scope of the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and its applicability to the case. The judgment highlighted the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences and the powers of the police to investigate and file charge-sheets. The court also referred to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and its relevance to the case, emphasizing the definition of 'evidence' and the applicability of the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii). The judgment cited relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order framing charges against him for offences under sections 205, 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was accused of misusing a solvency certificate and forging bail bonds for his release. The petitioner argued that his incarceration at the time of furnishing the forged documents should quash the proceedings and that the procedure prescribed under section 195(1)(b) of the Code was not followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's incarceration at the time of furnishing forged documents did not warrant quashing of the proceedings. The court also held that the procedure prescribed under section 195(1)(b) of the Code was followed, and the bar contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii) did not apply to the case. The court dismissed the petitioner's arguments and held him liable to be prosecuted.
Issues: The issues were whether the petitioner's incarceration at the time of furnishing forged documents for his release is grounds for quashing of impugned proceedings and whether the impugned proceedings should be quashed on the basis of the alleged non-compliance of the procedure prescribed under section 195(1)(b) of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code, the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences, and the applicability of the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) to the case. The court also considered the relevance of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cited case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Final Decision: The miscellaneous petition was dismissed, and the stay petition was also dismissed accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of preferring the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.08.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as "the Revisional Court"), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.03.2022, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") was rejected.
2. The facts relevant for the present case are that one Durgaram Meghwal (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, stating therein that with the connivance of the Reader of the concerned court, one Sachinder Sharma, the present petitioner and his counsel Mohabbat Singh Deora misused the solvency certificate enclosed with a surety bond for securing the release of the petitioner which the complainant had given for some other accused in another case.
3. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner, whereafter, by the impugned order dated 25.03.2022, the learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under sections 205, 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
4. Against the above referred order of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which came to be rejected by the learned Revisional Court per viam order dated 05.08.2022. Hence, the present petition.
5. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner while highlighting that the petitioner was behind bars, when the petitioner's bail bonds were furnished, argued that the petitioner cannot be said to be involved in furnishing such bail bonds.
6. It was also argued that in view of the mandatory prohibition contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), neither can the police investigate the matter nor can any Court frame the charges on the basis of such FIR involving allegation of offences committed under sections 205, 420, 468 & 471 of the IPC, as the Court can take cognizance only pursuant to a complaint filed by the officer of the Court or a competent authority mentioned under section 195 of the Code.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 318, in support of his arguments.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
9. There are only two issues arising out of petitioner's arguments which are as follows:
(i) Whether the petitioner's incarceration at the time of furnishing forged documents for his release is grounds for quashing of impugned proceedings?
(ii) Whether the impugned proceedings should be quashed on the basis of the alleged non-compliance of the procedure prescribed under section 195(1)(b) of the Code?
10. It is clear from the record that a bail bond which was furnished in the case of accused--Thana Ram has been misused by the petitioner or his accomplices in petitioner's favour with forged signatures of the complainant along with his solvency certificate.
11. After investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner, as the petitioner was the sole beneficiary and he had sent someone impersonating the complainant to sign the bail bond.
12. It is noteworthy that during investigation, the police has failed to find the person who had signed the bail bond. Though the petitioner in his interrogation had taken name of one Bharat, but the FSL report showed that the bail bond was not signed by Bharat and accordingly Bharat's name was dropped from the list of accused.
13. The factum of petitioner being behind bars when the purported forged bail bonds were submitted, cannot be an absolute defence in petitioner's favour. Maybe, h
