IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR ON THE 3^rd OF JULY, 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2774 of 2024 (ARVIND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Appearance :

(SHRI DEVDEEP SINGH- ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)

(SHRI VINOD THAKUR- P.L./G.A. FOR THE STATE AND SHRI SOUMITRA BAJAJ- ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2)

……………………………………………………………………………………..

JUDGEMENT

1] I.A. No.4437/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

2] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

3] This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C., assailing the order dated 13.04.2022 passed in S.T. No.34/2020 by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, whereby, the petitioner’s application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

4] In brief, the facts of the case are that a case was registered at Crime No.272/2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Signature Not Verified the IPC at Police Station Simrol, Mhow against the respondent No.2 Suresh, S/o Atmaram Barod, in which the respondent No.2 was granted bail. In the aforesaid bail application, certain documents were filed by the respondent No.2, which according to the petitioner were forged. The aforesaid bail application was also objected to by the petitioner at the time when the bail application was being entertained and subsequently, a separate application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. was filed with a prayer that appropriate action be initiated against the respondent No.2 for filing forged documents. However, the aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned Judged of the Trial Court vide its order dated 13.04.2022, holding that it has not found any document to be forged in the court, in the bail application. Hence this Appeal.

5] Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the aforesaid application despite the fact that a clear case of forgery is made out against the respondent No.2, who had filed forged documents of revenue record of Kh No.B-1 and B-2 of 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, which were in digital form, despite the fact that revenue records were digitalized in the year 2011 only.

6] On the other hand, Shri Soumitra Bajaj, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as even in the bail order, liberty had already been given to the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedy.

7] In support of his submissions, counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Signature Not Verified Gulabrao Bondre Vs. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh and Others reported as (2023) 9 SCC 539; Sachida Nand Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported as AIR 1998 SC 1121 and Iqbal Singh Marwah and Others Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Others reported as (2005) 4 SCC 370 to submit that since the aforesaid documents were prepared outside the Court, hence, the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

8] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9] So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Gulabrao Bondre (Supra) is concerned, paras 16, 17, and 18 of the same read as under:-

“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:

(Iqbal Singh Morwa case, SCC pp.390-91, paras 33-34)

“33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time whe