Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

R.C.LAHOTI, B.N.AGARWAL, H.K.SEMA, G.P.MATHUR, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
Iqbal Singh Marwah – Appellant
Versus
Meenakshi Marwah – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties :Dr. A.M. Singhvi, T.L. Iyer, Y.P. Narula, Sr. Advocates, Joy Basu, Vinod Kumar, Rahul Tyagi, Madhurendra Kumar, B.K. Satija, V. Krishnamurthy, P.R. Kovilan, V. Balachandaran, Gopalakrishnan, Abhay Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, Abhijeet Chatterjee, Subodh Pathak, Ms. Seema Bengani, Chanchal Kr. Ganguly, Raghuvendra S. Srivastava, V. Senthil Kumar, V.J. Francis, P.I. Jose, Jenis V. Francis, Anupam Mishra, E.M.S. Anam, Shantha Kr. V. Mahale and Rajesh Mahale, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the interpretation of the phrase "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court" under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.? Question 2? Whether Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. can bar private prosecutions for forgery of a document if the document was forged before it was produced in court, i.e., prior to custodia legis? Question 3? Should the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. be applied strictly to acts committed after production of the document in court, or could an enlarged interpretation lead to misuse or conflict with civil proceedings?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the interpretation of the phrase "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court" under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.?

Question 2?

Whether Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. can bar private prosecutions for forgery of a document if the document was forged before it was produced in court, i.e., prior to custodia legis?

Question 3?

Should the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. be applied strictly to acts committed after production of the document in court, or could an enlarged interpretation lead to misuse or conflict with civil proceedings?

Judgment

G.P. Mathur, J.—Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4111 of 2000.

2. In view of conflict of opinion between two decisions of this Court each rendered by a bench of three learned Judges in Surjit Singh vs. Balbir Singh 1996 (3) SCC 533 and Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar 1998 (2) SCC 493, regarding interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), this appeal has been placed before the present Bench.

3. The facts of the case may be noticed in brief. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers of Mukhtar Singh Marwah, while respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are his widow and son respectively. Mukhtar Singh Marwah died on 3.6.1993. The appellant No.1 filed Probate Case No. 363 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Delhi, for being granted probate of the will allegedly executed by Mukhtar Singh Marwah on 20.1.1993. The petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the will was forged. On their application the appellant No.1 filed the original will in the Court of District Judge on 10.2.1994. Thereafter, the respondents moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to file a crimi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

R.C.LAHOTI, B.N.AGARWAL, H.K.SEMA, G.P.MATHUR, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYANIqbal Singh Marwah – AppellantVersusMeenakshi Marwah – Respondent