Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abdul Majid vs Hukumchand on 6 August, 1955
Equivalent citations: AIR 1957 MADHYA BHARAT 12
ORDER Chaturvedi, J.
1. Heard Mr. Kirtane. The applicant was a party to a civil suit No. 5 of 1919 decided by the Indore State High Court on 10-1-1921. It is alleged that the opponent in that suit had forged some documents. The applicant tried for a complaint to be filed by the Court against the opponents, but the Court refused to file any. Now the applicant himself has preferred a complaint on 6-1-1954 against the opponents under Sections 471 & 474, I.P.C. This complaint has been summarily dismissed by the Additional City Magistrate, Indore, and his decision has been upheld by the Sessions Judge, Indore.
2. In this revision it is urged that the order is wrong. The relevant portion of Section 195 is the following:
No Court shall take cognizance (c) of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475, or Section 476 of the same Code when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced, or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.
3. Mr. Kirtane contends that the Section can apply only when the offence is committed by a party to a proceeding; and therefore urges that after the termination of the proceedings the opponents cannot be considered to be "parties to the proceedings" and so Section 195 will not apply. He places reliance upon the observation made in Ajog Narain v. Emperor 1937 Bom. 14 (AIR V 24) (A), that the words "committed by a party to any proceedings in any Court" in Section 195(1)(c) imply that the proceedings must be pending at the material time,
4. With great respect, I may state that the wording of Section 195(1)(c) is quite clear and there can be no warrant for the proposition enunciated. A complaint can be filed by the Court only when it has arrived at the conclusion that some forgery has been committed by a party to the proceeding, and such conclusion is generally arrived at when the Court decides the case. So a complaint can be filed, generally, only when the proceedings terminate. It follows that I do not agree with the Bombay view.
5. The correct view has been laid down by Chaudhary J. C. in Satya Dev v. Ghanshiam , that it is not necessary that at the time a Magistrate takes cognizance of the complaint, the proceedings in or in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed must be still pending.
6. I therefore, do not find any force in the contention of Mr. Kirtane and would reject this application for revision.