SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(Mad) 390

SOMASUNDARAM
A. Pafeeq Ahmed Sahib – Appellant
Versus
Istiaq Ahmed – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:A. C. Antharama For Haibullah Badsha, E. S. Govindan, A. S. Chandrasekharan, Md. Rajinudin Madani, Advocates.

Judgment :-

This is an application for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No. 5606 of 1973, in the court of the VIII Presidency Magistrate, G.T. Madras. That case is a case for the alleged offences of forgery and making use of a forged document in certain rent control proceedings and the respondent herein (tenant) is the complainant therein. His case is that on 7-3-1968, the petitioner-landlord obtained his signature in a blank sheet of paper, that subsequently he brought into existence the recitals in that sheet to show as though the respondent was in arrears of rent to the turn of Rs. 1563.77 and subsequently made use of this document in the proceedings for eviction. The petitioner contends that Section 195(1), Criminal Procedure Code is a bar for the present proceedings because the document in question even according to the respondent, was used in proceedings in court and that it is that court which should come forward with a complaint for offences of forgery etc.

2. Therefore, the short point for determination is, whether the proceedings are sustainable without a complaint by Court as contemplated by Section 195(1), Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Ex. P-1









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top