Patna High Court - Orders
Devendra Pratap Singh & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 April, 2010
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr. Misc. No.22824 of 1998
1. Birendra Prasad
2. Hari Narain
Both sons of Late Rudal Prasad, resident of village Harsidhi Babutola P.O+P.S
Harsidhi, District East Champaran ... ... petitioners
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR.
2. Bhola Roy, son of Jagdish Ray, resident of Babu Tola, village- Harsidhi,
P.O+ P.S. Harsidhi, District East Champaran .. .. opposite parties
With
Cr. Misc. No.23324 of 1998
Jiwa Nand @ Jiwanand Prsad son of Sri Sahdeo Prasad resident of Mohalla-
Baluwa Bazar, P.S. Motihari Town District- East Champaran, Motihari .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Bhola Ray, son of Jagdish Ray, resident of village - Harsidhi Babu Tola,
P.S. Harsidhi, District East Champaran .. .. opposite parties
With
Cr. Misc. No.21479 of 1998
1. DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, son of Late Ram Rekha Singh, resident of
village- Mathia Bhopat, police station- Lakhour, District- East Champaran,
Retired Assistant Accountant, Civil Court, East Champaran at Motihari
2. Syed Zahur Ahmad, son of late Sayed Wasir Ahamad, resident of village-
Sonepur, police station- Sonepur, District Chapra. Assistant, Civil Court, East
Champaran at Motihari ... ..... petitioners
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. Bhola Rai, son of Jagdish Rai, resident of village- Harsidhi, Babu Tola, P.S.
Harsidhi, District East Champaran .. .. opposite parties
With
Cr. Misc. No.1689 of 1999
1. AWADHESH RAI
2. Chandraket Rai all sons of Ram Surat Rai deceased
3. Jitendra Rai
All are residents of village- Harsidhi Tola- Babutola, PS Harsidhi, District East Champaran
... ... petitioners
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. Bhola Rai, son of Jagdish Rai, resident of village- Harsidhi, Babutola P.S.
Harsidhi, District East Champaran .. .. opposite parties
-----------
For the petitioners: Mr. S. P. Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the complaint: Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the State: Mr. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
---------
9 16-04-2010Heard learned counsels for the petitioners in all these four quashing applications, learned counsel for the State and Sri 2 Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the complainant.
The only issue for deciding in these four quashing applications is whether forgery alleged in the complaint petition is in respect of a document which is covered by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the `Cr. P.C.').
So far as provisions of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C. are concerned, there is no confusion and the law is also clear. In fact both the parties have referred to a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Vs the State of Bihar & Anr. Reported in 1998 (3) PLJR (SC) 13. The relevant provision, that is, Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) as well as the aforesaid judgement clearly stipulate and explain that the bar upon power to take cognizance on a private complaint is attracted only when the offences in question, that is those covered by Section 195 (1) (b)
(ii) are alleged to be in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.
In the present case, the allegations of forgery are in respect of a compromise petition and a final decree prepared on that basis. According to learned counsels for the petitioners these documents in a disposed of civil suit are also covered by the expression "documents produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court".
The clear provision in the Cr. P.C noticed above and the law settled by the Apex Court noticed earlier leave no scope 3 but to reject the aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners. In the present case the allegation of forgery etc. is not in respect of any document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court and hence, the bar under section 195 Cr. P.C is not attracted and the impugned order of cognizance cannot be faulted on that account. All the quashing applications must fail in view of such conclusion.
However, in order to be fair to learned counsels appearing in Cr. Misc. No. 21479/1998 and 23324/1998 it must be noticed that issue of grant of sanction was also raised because the petitioners in these applications are/were employees of the Civil Court who also allegedly committed/abetted the offence. This issue is no longer alive in view of a judgement of this court dated 28-8-1998 passed in Cr. W. J.C. No. 657/1997. A copy of that judgement was produced before the court by Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Sr. counsel for the complainant. By that order this court held that in the facts of the case no sanction order was required for prosecuting the concerned employees of the Civil Court.
In the result, all the quashing applications are found to be without any merit. They are dismissed accordingly. Learned court below must dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law expeditiously.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) BKS/-