Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. only bars prosecution for offences related to documents after such documents are presented in court.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Vijeta Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Alok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2.

2. Applicant before this Court is proposed accused. Complainant has filed a criminal complaint case, however after statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., Magistrate concerned has passed order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. rejecting complaint mainly on ground that for allegations made in complaint, appropriate remedy is to file an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as well as that there is a bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

3. Aforesaid order was challenged at the instance of complainant before Revisional Court. Revisional Court after hearing both parties by means of impugned order dated 20.02.2024 set aside the order passed by Magistrate and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by assigning reasons that grounds mentioned in the order passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. were not legally sustainable. For reference relevant part of impugned order dated 20.02.2024 is reproduced hereinafter:

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that allegations levelled against applicant are false. There is a police report in favour of applicant. However, learned counsel failed to convince the Court on legal issue that reason assigned by Magistrate while passing order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. were not legally sustainable and that Revisional Court has passed impugned order on basis of settled principle of law.

5. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has supported impugned order.

6. Revisional Court has taken note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwa and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another , (2005) 4 SCC 370 . Recently also the Supreme Court in Ashok Gulabrao Bondre vs. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh and others , (2023)9 SCC 539 it has considered the issue involved in present case and referring the relevant part of judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwa (supra) in paras 15, 16 and 17, has held as under:

“15. Finding the two conflicting views taken with regard to the interpretation of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., the question was referred to the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwa (supra). It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 7 of the said judgment, which is as under:

“7. On a plain reading clause (b)(ii) of subsection (1) of Section 195 is capable of two interpretations. One possible interpretation is that when an offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 IPC is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document which is subsequently produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, a complaint by the Court would be necessary. The other possible interpretation is that when a document has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court and thereafter an offence described as aforesaid is committed in respect thereof, a complaint by the Court would be necessary. On this interpretation if the offence as described in the Section is committed prior to production or giving in evidence of the document in Court, no complaint by Court would be necessary and a private complaint would be maintainable. The question which requires consideration is which of the two interpretations should be accepted having regard to the scheme of the Act and object sought to be achieved.”

16. After observing the aforesaid and considering the entire scheme under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., so also under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., this Court observed thus: “33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the