State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sanjay Sharma vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on 10 June, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.563 of 2015
Date of institution : 29.05.2015
Date of decision : 10.06.2015
Sanjay Sharma son of Ram Sarup, resident of House No.468, Guru
Nanak Colony, Sangrur.
......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Nelson Mandela
Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070.
2. Anil Kumar, Proprietor, Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.
3. Sukhjiwan Singh s/o Roop Singh, Works Manager, Max Autos,
Dhuri Road, Sangrur.
........Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
28.4.2015 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Rishav Jain, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/applicant/complainant, Sanjay Sharma, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28.4.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the application filed by him under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for initiating criminal First Appeal No. 563 of 2015 2 proceedings against the respondents/opposite parties, was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant filed complaint (CC No.868 dated 1.11.2011) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against Max Autos and Maruti Suzuki, opposite parties, before the District Forum and the same was decided on 25.6.2012. After the decision of the complaint, the complainant served notice dated 17.8.2012 upon the Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki, Anil Kumar, Proprietor, Max Autos and Sukhjiwan Singh, Works Manager, Max Autos with the request to supply the original complete copy/manual produced before the District Forum as Ex.R-39 and also mentioned in the notice that on their failure to supply that original complete copy/manual, he would initiate proceedings against them under Section 195 Cr.P.C. read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. for the offence of forgery and fraud. The notice was duly replied by Anil Kumar, vide Reply dated 31.8.2012, sent through his counsel. Thereafter the complainant filed application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. before the District Forum for initiating criminal proceedings against the respondents and for directing the SHO, PS-Sangrur to register the case against them under Section 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. That application was disposed of, vide order dated 6.3.2013 and the original application itself was sent to the SHO, PS- Sangrur to enquire into the matter and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Against that order the respondents preferred Criminal Misc. No.M-10108 of 2013 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. First Appeal No. 563 of 2015 3 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The same was allowed, vide order dated 7.3.2014 and the order dated 6.3.2013 was set aside. However, the District Forum was given the liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the complainant moved fresh application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for initiating criminal proceedings against the respondents. That application was contested by the respondents, who filed their replies to the same. It was that application, which was disposed of, vide impugned order, by relying upon the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 178 (Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.), on the ground that the document Ex.R39 was forged by the respondents before producing the same before the District Forum and was never forged when the same was in its custody.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the document was forged by the respondents before the District Forum and, as such, it is the District Forum, which is to file the complaint and it committed an illegality while dismissing the application filed for initiating criminal proceedings against them. In support of his submission he relied upon three Judges judgment First Appeal No. 563 of 2015 4 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 168 (M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana).
5. The ratio of the judgment, so relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the petitioner, against whom the criminal proceedings were initiated, had deliberately fabricated false record before the Court itself. It is very much clear from the facts of the present case that no such document was fabricated before or in the District Forum itself and it was the document produced in evidence, which is said to be forged and fabricated. If at all the same was forged and fabricated, it was forged or fabricated before the same was produced before the District Forum. Whether in such a case the District Forum was duty bound to initiate the criminal proceedings against the respondents?
6. According to Section 195, which deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence, no Court can take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the said Code, 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. According to Section 13(5) of the Act, every proceeding before the District Forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the District Forum shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195, and First Appeal No. 563 of 2015 5 Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, for the purposes of the present appeal, which involves the interpretation of Section 195, for all intents and purposes the District Forum is to be deemed as a "civil court".
7. The interpretation of the expression "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in a proceeding in any court" came up for consideration in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (supra). After discussing a number of judgments on that point, it was concluded by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offence enumerated in the said provision had 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.
8. The same matter attracted the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in George Bhaktan v. Rabindra Lele and others 2014 (5) Recent Apex Judgments 572. In that case the allegation in the complaint was that the respondents forged the signature of the complainant and submitted to the Corporation seeking extension of period for supply and thereafter the same was filed before the Court in the suit. There was no allegation that the document was forged when the matter was subjudice before the Civil Court. By making reference to an earlier judgment of Constitutional Bench in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, 1954 SCR 1144, it was held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would apply only when First Appeal No. 563 of 2015 6 the alleged forgery took place when the document was in custody of the Court.
9. The application filed by the appellant/applicant was correctly dismissed by the District Forum by relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order passed by it does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER June 10, 2015 Bansal