1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 240 OF 2015

(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) NO.1887/2011)

KAILASH MANGAL

... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

RAMESH CHAND (D) TH. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2.

Challenging the correctness of the judgment in

Criminal Appeal No. 336-SBA of 2008 dated 14.10.2010, in and

by which, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh,

convicted the appellant under Sections 193 and 419 of the

Indian Penal Code, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3.

Brief facts in nutshell are that the appellant and

the respondent are real brothers. One Surinder Kumar, who

is the maternal uncle of the appellant, has filed Civil Suit

No. 181 of 1987 against his sister Smt. Champa Devi and

others on 01.10.1987, interalia praying for a declaration

that he is the owner of a shop being No. 108, Ward 1, Old

Mandi, Tohana, to the exclusion of his sister. During the

pendency of the suit, Champa Devi, the mother of the

appellant and the respondent passed away on 14.07.1990.

Digitally signed by

Vinod Kumar

Date: 2015.02.05

15:36:02 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

Upon her demise, the appellant, who is the elder son of

Champa Devi, filed an application in the civil court for

bringing on record himself and the respondent along with

four sisters as the legal heirs of deceased Champa Devi.

While moving the application, instead of naming himself and

his younger brother Ramesh Chand, it appears that the

appellant has stated his name as Ramesh Chand alias Kailash

Mangal i.e. showing them as one person instead of two

persons. It is stated that after some time, the respondent

moved an application for correcting the said mistake and the

same was ordered. The suit filed by Surinder Kumar was

decreed in his favour.

4.

When the matter stood thus, nearly after four

years of the aforesaid decree, on 15.1.1994, the respondent

filed a private complaint against the appellant under

Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that by filing a false

affidavit before the civil court, the appellant has

committed offences punishable under Sections 416, 419, 191,

192 and 193 of the IPC and also for initiation criminal

proceedings against the appellant. The said private

complaint was taken on file and the trial proceeded. After

consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court

convicted the appellant under Sections 193 and 419 of the

IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. Against

this order, the appellant has filed appeal before the Court

of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, which set aside the

3

conviction of the appellant on the ground that the private

complaint is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the acquittal

of the appellant, the respondent has filed an appeal before

the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which vide

impugned judgment, allowed the appeal and set aside the

order of acquittal passed by the first appellate court and

restored the judgment of conviction of the appellant under

Sections 193 and 419 of the IPC. The High Court directed

that the appellant be released on probation on furnishing

personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the trial court, subject to certain terms

and conditions.

5.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6.

The Main contention urged by the learned counsel

for the appellant is that so far as the offences committed

in relation to the proceedings before the civil court, in

terms of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, (for short 'Cr.P.C') for the offences punishable

under Sections 193 to 196,199, 200 to 211 and 228 of the

IPC, is concerned the court shall take cognizance only on

the co