Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 555
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Rakesh Kumar – Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another – Respondents
CRM No.M-38002 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-05-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate
The main legal point established is that in cases of forgery committed while documents are in the custody of the court, the procedure under Section 340 Cr.P.C. must be followed for filing a complaint by the court, as per the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Forgery - Quashing of FIR - Sections 420, 464, 465, 466 IPC - Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the FIR registered against them for committing cheating/forgery with the complainant in court by tampering with a judicial file. The FIR was registered based on the application filed by the complainant alleging tampering with a cheque during court proceedings to benefit the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registration of the FIR was not as per law as the complaint was not filed by the court, and cognizance cannot be taken under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. without following the procedure under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was whether the registration of the FIR for forgery was in accordance with the legal provisions under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. and the requirement to follow the procedure under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for filing a complaint by the court in cases of forgery committed while documents are in the custody of the court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings as the registration of the FIR was not in accordance with the legal provisions.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents State of Punjab and Rajiv Mahajan for quashing the FIR No.26 dated 07.04.2014 under Sections 420, 464, 465 and 466 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.1, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
4. From the record, I find that in the present case FIR has been registered on the basis of the application filed by Rajeev Kumar for committing cheating/forgery with the complainant in the court by tampering with judicial file, in which the complainant alleged that the date of the cheque has been tampered with from 05.09.2012' to 08.09.2012' while the cheque was in custody of the Court and this tampering was done during the Court proceedings to benefit the accused.
5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, after discussing the facts, directed SHO to investigate the matter and to register the FIR after making enquiry as the Court came to the conclusion that there is overwriting on the cheque Ex.C1 and respondent is beneficiary of the same. On the basis of this order dated 12.12.2013 passed by learned CJM, Pathankot, FIR was registered.
6. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the document is tampered with in the judicial proceedings while in the custody of the Court, then Section 195(1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. applies. I have gone through the above-said provision, which states that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgment passed by Large Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 178, in which it is held as under:-
17. Section 190 Cr.P.C. provides that a Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, (b) upon a police report of such facts, and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. Section 195 Cr.P.C. is a sort of exception to this general provision and creates an embargo upon the power of the Court to take cognizance of certain types of offences enumerated therein. The procedure for filing a complaint by the Court as contemplated by Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. is given in Section 340 Cr.P.C. and sub-section (1) and (2) thereof are being reproduced below:
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195-(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in
