Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 812
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Suhil Kumar Gupta, J.
Bacchan Singh v. State of M.P.
Criminal Revision No.706 of 2013 (Gwalior) : against the order dated 25.6.2013, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena,
in S.T. No.279 of 2012; Decided on 28.8.2015.
Atul Gupta for petitioner;
B.P.S. Chauhan, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.397 r/w 401, 195(1)(b)(ii) and 340(1) -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.419, 114, 467, 468, 471 and 181 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.9 R.13 -- scope of -- surety bond forged earlier and same filed in Court -- it is not case that any offence committed in respect of said forged surety bond after it had been produced or filed in Court -- bar created in section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Code would not come into play -- no embargo on power of Court to send written report to police for taking cognizance against petitioner -- revision being without merit dismissed
Held : In the present case, according to the case of the prosecution, the surety bond had been forged earlier and thereafter the same was filed in the Court. It is nobody's case that any offence as enumerated in section 195(b)(ii) of the Code was committed in respect to the said forged surety bond after it had been produced or filed in the Court. Therefore, the bar created by section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to send written report to police station for taking cognizance against petitioner. AIR 2005 SC 2119 followed.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.340(1) and 195(1)(b) -- scope of preliminary enquiry -- it is to ascertain whether offence affecting administration of justice in respect of document produced in Court or given in evidence -- so offence under section 195(1)(b) must involve acts which affected administration of justice -- and offence should have been committed at that time when document was in custody of Court -- but such forged surety bond prepared much be fare and out of Court -- bar contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Code not applicable.
Held : The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in section 340(1) is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. So the offences envisaged in section 195(1)(b) must involve acts which would have affected the administration of justice. The offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court.
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397 lgifBr /kkjk 401] 195¼1½¼[k½¼2½ rFkk 340¼1½ && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 419] 114] 467] 468] 471 rFkk 181 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-9 fu-13 && dh O;kfIr && izfrHkwfr ca/k&i= iwoZ esa dwVjfpr rFkk ogh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr && ;g ,slk ekeyk ugha gS fd dksbZ vijk/k dfFkr dwVjfpr ca/k&i= ds laca/k esa] og U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk Fkk] mlds i'pkr~ dkfjr fd;k x;k gks && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 195¼1½¼[k½¼2½ esa l`ftr fd, x, otZu fØ;k'khy ugha gksaxs && U;k;ky; dh ;kph ds fo#) laKku ysus ds fy, fyf[kr fjiksVZ Hkstus dh 'kfDr ij dksbZ izfrca/k ugha && iqujh{k.k xq.kkxq.k jfgr gksus ls [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izLrqr ekeys esa] vfHk;ksxh ds ekeys ds vuqlkj] izfrHkwfr caèk&i= iwoZ esa dwVjfpr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk rRi'pkr~ ogh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;kA ;g ekeyk ,slk ugha gS fd dksbZ vijk/k tSlk fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 195¼1½¼[k½¼2½ esa izxf.kr fd;k x;k dfFkr dwVjfpr ca/k&i= ds laca/k esa og U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk Fkk] mlds i'pkr~ dkfjr fd;k x;k gks] blfy,] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 195¼1½¼[k½¼2½ }kjk l`ftr fd, x, izfrca/k fØ;k'khy ugha gksaxs rFkk U;k;ky; dh ;kph ds fo#) laKku ysus ds fy, fyf[kr fjiksVZ Hkstus dh 'kfDr ij dksbZ izfrca/k ugha gSA , vkb vkj 2005 ,l lh 2119 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 340¼1½ rFkk 195¼1½¼[k½ && izkjafHkd tk¡p dh O;kfIr && ;g vfHkfuf'pr djuk fd D;k vijk/k U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd, x, ;k lk{; esa fn, x, nLrkost ds laca/k esa U;kf;d iz'kklu dks izHkkfor dj jgk gS && blfy, èkkjk 195¼1½¼[k½ ds v/khu os d`R; varoZfyr gksuk pkfg, ftuls U;kf;d iz'kklu izHkkfor gqvk && rFkk vijk/k ml le; fd;k x;k gqvk gksuk pkfg, tc nLrkost U;k;ky; dh vfHkj{kk esa Fkk && ijarq ,slk dwVjfpr ca/k&i= cgqr igys rFkk U;k;ky; ds ckgj rS;kj fd;k x;k && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 195¼1½[k½¼2½ esa varfoZ"V otZu ykxw ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 340¼1½ esa ifjdfYir izkjafHkd tk¡p dh O;kfIr ;g gS fd D;k U;kf;d iz'kklu dks izHkkfor djus okyk dksbZ vijk/k ml U;k;ky; esa lk{; esa ;k U;k;ky; esa izLrqr nLrkost ds laca/k dkfjr fd;k x;k gSA blfy, èkkjk 195¼1½¼[k½ esa ifjdfYir vijk/kksa esa os d`R; varoZfyr gksuk pkfg, ftUgksaus U;k;ky; iz'kklu dks izHkkfor fd;k gksA vijk/k ml le; dkfjr fd;k x;k gks tc nLrkost fof/k vfHkj{kk esa FkkA
mijksDr foospuk dk ifj.kke gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 195¼1½¼[k½¼11½ esa varfoZ"V otZu ,sls ekeys esa ykxw ugha gS tgk¡ nLrkost dh dwVjpuk nLrkost U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k mlds iwoZ dh xbZA
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2013 passed by the First ASJ, Morena, in S.T. No.279/2012, whereby charges under section 419 read with sections 114 and 468 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the Code of 1860) were framed, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code).
2. The facts of the case in brief are that an execution Case No.23/88/96 was pending in the Court of District Judge, Morena, against the petitioner. The said case was filed for recovery of decreetal amount in compliance of ex parte order dated 14.2.1994 passed in Case No.23/88. During execution proceeding, the petitioner, judgment debtor, filed an application stating that he has submitted an application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte decree which has been registered as Miscellaneous Suit No.33/97, hence, till decision of that suit, the execution proceeding be stayed. The application of the petitioner was accepted and it was directed that if the petitioner furnishes a surety of Rs.1,76,000/-, the execution proceeding shall be stayed till decision of Miscellaneous Suit No.33/97. Thereafter, the petitioner on 3.12.1997 furnished the surety in the name of Jaswant Singh. After disposal of Miscellaneous Suit No.33/97 on 16.8.1999, District Judge, Morena, directed in the execution case to proceed further. In compliance of the order, a notice was issued to the surety for depositing the amount of surety bond. Thereafter, Jaswant Singh appeared before the Court and submitted that he has not furnished any surety on behalf of the petitioner and some other person has furnished the surety using his name. On the direction of the Court, Shri Krishan Veer Singh, Reader of the Court, sent a written report to T.I. Kotwali, District Morena, on which Crime No.200/10 was registered under sections 419, 467, 468, 471/181 of the Code of 1860 at Police Station, Kotwali, District Morena. After investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of CJM which committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge. Thereafter, learned Ist ASJ, Morena vide impugned order dated 25.6.2013 framed the aforesaid charges, hence, this revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the alleged forged and fabricated surety was presented before the District Court and in such type of matters provisions of section 195 of the Code are attracted and provisions of section 340 of the Code is to be followed and according to those provisions, no police report can be lodged, but only that Court can file a private complaint against the petitioner. He further submitted that in this case complaint against the petitioner was sent to the Police Station by one Krishna Veer Singh and after registration of the FIR and investigation, police has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner, that is in violation of the provisions of Section 195 and section 340 of the Code. In addition, it is further submitted that in the present matter, no private complaint was filed by the concerning Court and case is initiated on the Police report, which is not permissible under the provisions of sections 195 and 340 of the Code. In continuation, it is also submitted that ingredients of section 340 of the Code are not fulfilled and hence, the FIR and further proceedings therefrom deserve to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and further supported the impugned order of framing of charge and prays for dismissal of the revision.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel and perused the entire record.
6. The main question involved in this revision is whether bar under section 195 of the Code would be attracted in this case or not. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant provisi
