Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalji Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
1 Cr.R. No.3372/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No.3372 of 2024
LALJI SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Applicant - Lalji Sharma is present in person.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against order dated 29/05/2024 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.292/2022, by which charges under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC have been framed.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that he is the resident of Rishi Parisar, whereas complainant is the resident of Surya Nagar and both the colonies are adjoining to each other but they are different. The infrastructure meant for supply of water and electricity to Rishi Parisar is situated in front of the house of complainant. (On a specific query raised by this Court, it was submitted by the applicant that the infrastructure which is meant for supply of water and electricity to Rishi Parisar is situated outside the Rishi Parisar and is not a part of premises of Rishi Parisar and thus, it is clear that the 2 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 infrastructure meant for supply of basic amenities to Rishi Parisar is situated on the land which is a part of Surya Nagar.)
3. It is submitted by the applicant that the complainant unauthorizedly took a water tap connection and electricity connection, as a result most of the water pumped by the motor pump was being consumed by the complainant. As a result, all the residents of Rishi Parisar were either getting small quantity of water or were not getting the water supply at all. It is further submitted that the complainant and his wife are Advocates by profession. The act of taking water supply as well as electricity connection was being objected by the applicant. It is alleged that complainant filed a Civil Suit seeking permanent injunction and declaration which was registered as RCSA No.369/2016, which is pending in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The notices of said Civil Suit were served on the applicant and other defendants. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed. In reply to the application, applicant filed reply supported by an affidavit of Mahesh Ahirwar, who was employed as a Chowkidar of the infrastructure. Thereafter, complainant levelled several allegations against the applicant and alleged that he has filed a forged affidavit of Mahesh Ahirwar and also produced Mahesh Ahirwar before the Court along with his three page affidavit by which he had disowned his first affidavit which was filed by the applicant in support of reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. It was alleged that the applicant had obtained the signature of Mahesh Ahirwar on a blank paper and he was not informed that for what purposes his signatures were being obtained. It is submitted that complainant also filed an application under Sections 340, 195 of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 191, 3 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 192, 193 and 196 of IPC before the Trial Court on the allegation of filing false affidavit. However, said application was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that it is a matter of evidence. Thereafter, complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Court of CJM, Bhopal alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 463, 468, 471, 120B of IPC. The said application was allowed by JMFC Bhopal by order dated 01/06/2018 and a direction was given to SHO, Police Station Kamla Nagar to lodge the FIR for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.
4. The Police after completing the investigation filed the charge- sheet for aforesaid offences.
5. The Trial Court by the impugned order has framed the charges under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.
6. Challenging the order framing charges, it is submitted by the applicant that even if the entire material collected by the Police is considered on its face value, it is clear that no offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC is made out. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, then it would be clear that an offence under Section 193 of IPC would be made out but in absence of any complaint by the Court as required under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., applicant cannot be prosecuted even for offence under Section 193 of IPC. It is submitted by the applicant that in nutshell, allegations against the applicant are that he obtained signatures of Chowkidar Mahesh Ahirwar on a blank paper which was used for filing an affidavit in support of reply to the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. If the allegations are considered in the light of definition of Cheating as given under Section 415 of IPC, it is clear that no offence is made out. If cheating is not 4 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 made out then there is no question of commission of offence under Section 468 of IPC. Since the affidavit is not a forged one, therefore even offence under Section 471 of IPC would not be made out and for the similar reason, offence under Section 465 of IPC would also not be made out.
7. Considered the submissions made by the applicant.
8. Before considering the submissions made by the applicant, this Court would like to clarify that for the reasons best known to the applicant, he has not filed the complete copy of charge-sheet and has suppressed the annexures including statement of Mahesh Ahirwar and other witnesses which were filed along with charge-sheet.
9. When this aspect was pointed out to the applicant, then he did not express his willingness to file the complete set of charge-sheet, therefore this Court is not in a position to consider the complete material available against the applicant in detail. Even otherwise, any detail discussion at this stage may cause prejudice to the applicant in the trial. However, as the arguments were advanced in detail, therefore the same are being considered in the light of allegations made against the applicant.
10. Sections 415, 463 and 464 of IPC read as under:-
415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".5 Cr.R. No.3372/2024
* * *
463. Forgery.- Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
464. Making a false document.- A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--
First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently--
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a 6 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
11. The word "property" used in Section 415 of IPC would include affidavit also. Even otherwise, no argument has been advanced by the applicant that the word "property" would not include affidavit.
12. In order to make out an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there should be an allegation of inducement, deception or fraud to deliver the property. The property must be of the person so deceived by the accused and in absence of inducement, deception of fraud, such person was not liable to deliver the property.
13. It is the case of complainant that the applicant called the complainant to his house and obtained his signatures on a blank paper for filing an affidavit in support of reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Deceit means cheating or misleading.
14. Now the question for consideration is as to whether obtaining the signature of a deponent on a blank paper would amount to deceit or not?
15. Affidavit is a solemn statement made on oath before Notary or Oath Commissioner who have been given the limited power of Magistrate to administer Oath to the deponent. Thus, the statement made on affidavit is not a waste piece of paper and it has its value.
16. This Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Sharma and others Vs. Sukhdevlal and others decided on 18/04/2022 in M.Cr.C. No.8770/2016 has held as under:-
7 Cr.R. No.3372/2024"8. Section 3(3) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as under:-
"3(3) "affidavit" shall include affirmation and declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing;"
9. Sections 3 and 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969 reads as under:-
3. Power to administer oaths.- (1) The following courts and persons shall have power to administer, by themselves or, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6, by an officer empowered by them in this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties imposed or in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by law, namely:--
(a) all courts and persons having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence;
(b) the commanding officer of any military, naval, or air force station or ship occupied by the Armed Forces of the Union, provided that the oath or affirmation is administered within the limits of the station.
(2) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by sub-section (1) or by or under any other law for the time being in force, any court, Judge, Magistrate or person may administer oaths and affirmations for the purpose of affidavits, if empowered in this behalf--
(a) by the High Court, in respect of affidavits for the purpose of judicial proceedings; or
(b) by the State Government, in respect of other affidavits.
4. Oaths or affirmations to be made by witnesses, interpreters and jurors.-(1) 8 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 Oaths or affirmations shall be made by the following persons, namely:--
(a) all witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may lawfully be examined, or give, or be required to give, evidence by or before any court or person having by law or consent of parties authority to examine such persons or to receive evidence;
(b) interpreters of questions put to, and evidence given by, witnesses; and
(c) jurors:
Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years of age, and the court or person having authority to examine such witness is of opinion that, though the witness understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation, the foregoing provisions of this section and the provisions of section 5 shall not apply to such witness; but in any such case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect the obligation of the witness to state the truth.
(2) Nothing in this section shall render it lawful to administer, in a criminal proceeding, an oath or affirmation to the accused person, unless he is examined as a witness for the defence, or necessary to administer to the official interpreter of any court, after he has entered on the execution of the duties of his office, an oath or affirmation that he will faithfully discharge those duties.
10. Thus, it is clear that the affidavit is a statement of declaration made by an affiant under oath for the affirmation which is administered by a person, who is authorized to do so by law.
Therefore, an affidavit is an another form of evidence which contains the verification of its 9 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 mode under oath on penalty purgery.
11. Section 24 of IPC reads as under:-
"24. "Dishonestly".--Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
11.1. Section 25 of IPC reads as under:-
"25. "Fraudulently".--A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise."
11.2. Section 191 of IPC reads as under:-
"191. Giving false evidence.--Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Explanation 1.--A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2.--A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know."
11.3. Section 192 of IPC reads as under:-
"192. Fabricating false evidence.-- Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or 1[makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement], intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an 10 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said "to fabricate false evidence".
11.4. Section 193 of IPC reads as under:-
"193. Punishment for false evidence.-- Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.--A trial before a Court- martial; is a judicial proceeding. Explanation 2.--An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice."
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 has held as under:-
"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya"
(truth) and "ahimsa" (non-violence).
Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system 11 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
12.1. The Supreme Court in the case of Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai Vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another reported in (2011) 5 SCC 496 has held as under:-
"15. Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent, but there must be a prima facie case of "deliberate falsehood" on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge."
12.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 757 has held as under:-
12 Cr.R. No.3372/2024"38. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as "the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalise or tend to scandalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any court; (2) prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the party concerned in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery of by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the 13 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 239] the respondents produced a false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case. This action was found to be an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice. Brother Hansaria, J. speaking for the Bench observed: (SCC pp. 423-24, paras 1 and 2) "The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same 14 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice."
12.3. The Supreme Court in the case of Baban Singh and another vs. Jagdish Singh and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 68 has held as under:-
7. The matter has to be considered from three stand points. Does the swearing of the false affidavits amount to an offence under S. 199, Indian Penal Code or under either S. 191 or 192, Indian Penal Code ? If it comes under the two latter sections, the present prosecution cannot be sustained. Section 199 deals with a declaration and does not state that the declaration must be on oath. The only condition necessary is that the declaration must be capable of being used as evidence and which any Court of justice or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence. Section 191 deals with evidence on oath and S. 192 with fabricating false evidence. If we consider this matter from the standpoint of S. 191, Indian Penal Code the offence is constituted by swearing falsely when one is bound by oath to state the truth because an affidavit is a declaration made under an oath. The definition of the offence of giving false evidence thus applies to the affidavits. The offence may also fall within S. 192. It lays down inter alia that a person is said to fabricate 15 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 false evidence if he makes a document containing a false statement intending that such false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding and so appearing in evidence may cause any person who, in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding. When Baban Singh and Dharichhan Kuer made declarations in their affidavits which were tendered in the High Court to be taken into consideration, they intended the statements to appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, and so appearing, to cause the Court to entertain an erroneous opinion regarding the compromise. In this way their offence came within the words of Ss. 191/192 rather than S. 199 of the Indian Penal Code. They were thus prima facie guilty of an offence of giving false evidence or of fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in a judicial proceeding.
13. Filing a false affidavit also amounts to contempt of Court. In the case of Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma reported in (1995) 1 SCC 421 the Supreme Court has held as under:-
8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately 16 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblemem but really happens in the portals of courts.
9. The aforesaid thoughts receive due support from the definition of criminal contempt as given in Section 2(c)) of the Act, according to which an act would amount be so if, inter alia, the same interferes or tends to interfere, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice.
The word 'interfere', means in the context of the subject, any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty, as stated at p. 255 of Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn.), ), Vol. 22.
As per what has been stated in the aforesaid work at p. 147 of Vol. 29 obstruction of justice is to interpose obstacles or impediments, or to hinder, impede or in any manner interrupt or preventnt the administration of justice. Now, if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive, the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the courts from performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do.
10. A reference to standard textbooks on contempt, to wit, C.J.
Miller's Contempt of Court Court;
Oswald's Contempt of Court;; and Anthony Arlidge & David Eady's The Law of Contempt would amply bear 17 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 what has been stated above; and that if a forged and fabricated document is filed, the same may amount to interference with the administration of justice. Of course, for the act to take this colour there is required to be an element of deceit or the knowledge of the statement being forged or fabricated. This is what finds place at pages 399 to 401 (2nd Edn.); page 62 (1993 Reprint); and pages 186 and 188 (1982 Edn.) respectively of the aforesaid treatises.
14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt.
14. The judgment passed in the case of Dhananjay Sharma (supra) has been relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Rita Markandey Vs. Surjit Singh Arora reported in (1996) 6 SCC
14. Thus, it is clear that a false affidavit which is executed deliberately knowing the fact that the declaration given on oath is false, has to be viewed with all seriousness and this practice of filing of such affidavit has to be deprecated. Therefore, counsel for the applicants is right in submitting that filing of the affidavit should be dealt with heavily."
18 Cr.R. No.3372/202417. Therefore, the affidavit has its evidentiary value with penal consequences and it cannot be used as a waste piece of paper.
18. For the reasons best known to the applicant, he has not filed the copy of statement of Mahesh Ahirwar recorded by Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In fact the applicant has filed the limited documents of his choice and same cannot be a method for arguing the Revision filed against the order framing charges.
19. The applicant has filed a copy of statement of Manohar Pathak, Notary which was recorded by Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. who has specifically admitted that it is not necessary that the signatures of the deponent should be taken in the Notary register and he also stated that he does not recollect as to whether he had obtained signatures of deponent Mahesh Ahirwar in Notary register or not. Manohar Pathak also stated that Mahesh Ahirwar was identified by the applicant and the person who had come along with the applicant had informed his name as Mahesh Ahirwar.
20. Thus, even from the statement of Manohar Pathak recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that there is a big question as to whether Manohar Pathak had obtained the signatures of deponent on his Notary register and it was fairly conceded by the applicant that even Police did not seize the register of Manohar Pathak, therefore Police has deliberately omitted to conduct a detailed enquiry and has deliberately omitted a good piece of evidence which otherwise would have thrown a light on the working of Manohar Pathak as well as authenticity of affidavit of Mahesh Ahirwar who has denied its execution but one thing 19 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 is clear that Manohar Pathak has not stated that Mahesh Ahirwar was personally known to him.
21. Thus, it is clear that if the signatures of deponent are obtained on a blank paper and contents are typed at a later stage by showing that it is a solemn statement of deponent on oath and if the deponent denies the execution of the same, then it would certainly come under the definition of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC and the act of the accused would also be punishable under Section 468 of IPC.
22. So far as the offence under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC are concerned, forgery has been defined under Section 463 of IPC which include making of false document.
23. The allegations are that the applicant had prepared a false affidavit of Mahesh Ahirwar. Making of a false document has been defined under Section 464 of IPC. One of the ingredients of making of false document is that the same must have been created with an intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed. Therefore, obtaining signatures of deponent on blank paper and thereafter getting the contents typed on the said blank paper with an intention to project that it was signed by the deponent, would certainly amount to making of false document which is punishable under Section 465 of IPC and when the said document is used as a genuine forged document, then such act would be punishable under Section 471 of IPC.
20 Cr.R. No.3372/202424. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the allegations made against the applicant prima facie make out a case under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC necessitating his trial.
25. So far as the contention made by applicant that at the best an offence under Section 193 of IPC would be made out but in absence of any complaint under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., he cannot be prosecuted for the same is concerned, the same is mis-conceived.
26. It is not the case of prosecution that the affidavit was altered, manipulated etc. while it was in custodia legis.
27. Undisputedly the affidavit was allegedly prepared outside the Court.
28. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would apply even in those cases where a false/ forged document is filed or would apply only to those cases where the document was forged, manipulated or interpolated etc. while it was in custodia legis.
29. The question is no more res integra.
30. The Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 has held as under:-
"33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh [(1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC 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 21 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis."
31. Thus, it is clear that where a document forged outside the Court is produced by the accused before the Court, then the bar as contained under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would not apply.
32. Under these circumstances, the contention of the applicant that in the light of bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., he cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section 193 of I.P.C. is misconceived and is hereby rejected.
33. It is made clear that the Court has not framed the charge under Section 193 of IPC but the aforesaid contention has been taken into consideration for the reason that the same was raised by the applicant himself.
34. Be that whatever it may be.
35. No other argument is advanced by counsel for the applicant.
36. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that no illegality was committed by the Trial Court by framing charges under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.
37. Accordingly, order dated 29/05/2024 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.292/2022 is hereby affirmed.
38. Revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
39. However, by way of abundant caution, it is observed that aforesaid observations on merits have been made in the light of limited scope of jurisdiction at this stage. The Trial Court shall decide the trial 22 Cr.R. No.3372/2024 strictly in accordance with evidence which would come on record without getting influenced or prejudiced by any of the observations.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.07.27 18:04:02 +05'30'