Karnataka High Court
M/S Lankesh Chitralaya vs M/S A K K Entertainment Private Limited on 27 August, 2013
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
-1-
WP.No.35391/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.35391/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. LANKESH CHITRALAYA
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.810
RING ROAD, 7TH BLOCK, 2ND PHASE
BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. INDRAJIT LANKESH ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA OF M/S. AKS LEGAL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. M/S A.K.K ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.109
"MIDFORD HOUSE", MIDFORD GARDENS
OFF: MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR MR. ASHOK KHENY
2. M/S ASHOK KHENY PRODUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.109
"MIDFORD HOUSE", MIDFORD GARDENS
OFF: MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR MR. ASHOK KHENY
3. M/S. A.K.K. PRODUCTIONS
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.109,
"MIDFORD HOUSE", MIDFORD GARDENS
OFF: MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR MR. ASHOK KHENY ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.DHYAN CHINNAPPA OF M/S CREST LAW
PARTNERS, ADVOCATES FOR C/Rs)
-2-
WP.No.35391/2013
WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD. 2.7.2013 PASSED ON I.A.NO.7/2011, IN
O.S.NO.2504/2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXVII ADDL.
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE ANNEXURE-L.
WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
This writ petition by defendant no.1 is directed against an interlocutory order dated 2.7.2013 passed by the trial court namely the Court of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in the suit in O.S.No.2504/2008 dismissing the application-I.A.No.7 filed by the petitioner under Sections 195 & 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C') to conduct an enquiry and to make a complaint in writing against the plaintiffs to the Jurisdictional Magistrate for the offences under Sections 192, 463, 464 & 465 of the IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order. -3- WP.No.35391/2013
3. The trial Court has dismissed the aforesaid application-I.A.No.7 on the ground that the offence alleged in respect of the document was not alleged to have been committed after the document was produced to the Court i.e. when the document was in the custody of the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submitted that no proper reasons are assigned for dismissing the application in I.A.No.7. According to him, the trial court ought to have held an inquiry in the matter as sought for in the application.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the application- I.A.No.7 referred to above is rightly dismissed by the trial court in view of the very averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application. He specifically referred to the following averments made in the affidavit:
-4-WP.No.35391/2013
"5..................................................... ................................................That while producing this photo copy to the Court along with the I.A. the plaintiffs have struck of the marking Annexure-B and also the pagination number and marked the same as document No.1 and page No.11 is given.
6. I state that the plaintiff while producing the agreement dated 01.02.2007 as document No.1 along with the I.A. as at Annexure-1 of the said document inserted the name of the films under the head "Low Budget & Big Budget". That the name of the films inserted under the heading 'low budget' is SHAADI KE AFTER EFFECTS and under the heading 'big budget', the name BLACK DIAMOND/CHASE has been inserted. This insertion is hand written and has been made by writing with a pen. I state that the plaintiffs in order to substantiate their false claim that the assignment under the contract were two films and that the said two films were named in the contract itself and were named as SHAADI KE AFTER EFFECTS AND BLACK DIAMOND/CHASE" have intentionally made the insertion, false entry in the document and produced the said -5- WP.No.35391/2013 forged and false document as Document no.1 along with the I.A........."
(Underlining supplied) By referring to the above averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application-I.A.7, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, even according to the petitioner (defendant no.1), the alleged forgery of the document produced as document No.1 in the suit was committed before it was produced to the Court. Hence, he submitted that the trial court is justified in dismissing the application in the light of the law laid down by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar [AIR 1998 SC 1121]. He referred to the following observations made therein:
"12. The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in S. 340(1) of the Code 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. In other words, the offence should -6- WP.No.35391/2013 have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
13. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed for outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the Court records. .................................................................. ..................................................................
24. The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in S.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. ..........."
(Underlining supplied) It is relevant to state that the law laid down in Sachida Nand Singh is affirmed by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [AIR 2005 SC 2119]. The following observations made therein may be noticed:
"25. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the -7- WP.No.35391/2013 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 when the document was in custodia legis."
6. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh and Iqbal Singh Marwah referred to above, the trial Court is right in dismissing I.A.No.7 as the petitioner (defendant no.1) has stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application-I.A.No.7 that the forgery of the document was committed before producing it to the Court. In my opinion, the order of the trial Court is in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the two judgments referred to above. I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
-8-WP.No.35391/2013
7. I may add that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court ought to have held an inquiry in the matter cannot be accepted in view of the order dated 01.03.2013 [Annexure-K] passed by this Court in a previous proceeding in W.P.No.23331/2012. It is relevant to refer to the order made therein:
"The Petition is allowed. The order dated 5-7-2012 passed by the learned XXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in O.S.No.2504/2008, on I.A.10 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to hear the petitioners' objections as raised in IA 10 with regard to the maintainability of I.A.7 and thereafter to hear I.A.7 on merits if necessary."
(Underlining supplied) In view of the above, the trial court has rightly examined the maintainability of I.A.No.7 in the impugned order. Even otherwise, no purpose would be served by holding an inquiry as the alleged forgery of -9- WP.No.35391/2013 the document was stated to have been committed prior to its production to the Court.
8. In the result, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to state that this order will not come in the way of the petitioner to initiate any other action in the matter as per law at the appropriate stage.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.