Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Ashish – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revisional court's authority to assess magistrate's order (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over allegations against applicant (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. interpretation of section 195 cr.p.c. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. application dismissed by the court (Para 9) |
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
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.
The court clarified that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. limits cognizance of forgery only if it occurs after the document has been submitted in court.
The court confirmed that presenting a forged document constitutes a serious offense warranting prosecution under relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the need for judicial integrity.
Petitioner has not been confined for illegal purpose amounting to commission of offence. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the liberty granted to him by filing the complaint under Sect....
A valid written complaint is required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. to initiate criminal proceedings for forgery related to evidence presented in court, highlighting procedural safeguards against wrongfu....
The court held that allegations of forgery and cheating in the FIR do not have a predominantly civil profile and are not barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., thus the FIR cannot be quashed.
Point of law: There is no room for any doubt to come to a conclusion that once offences under Section 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 228 IPC is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to ....
Cognizance for contempt must be taken by the court where original proceedings are pending; failure to do so violates the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
