Delhi District Court
Smt. Bakhtiawar Jahan vs Smt. Razia Ansar Ahmed on 21 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY GARG-I:
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI
CR No. 104/2017
Smt. Bakhtiawar Jahan,
W/o Sh. Kamaluddin,
R/o 6334, Gali Ishwari Prasad,
Bara Hindu Rao,
Delhi - 110006 ......Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Razia Ansar Ahmed,
W/o Sh. S.M. Ansar Ahmed,
R/o H.No. 2251/3, New Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi - 110008 ......Respondent
Date of Institution : 28.02.2017
Date of Arguments : 20.03.2017
Date of Order : 21.03.2017
ORDER
1. Vide this petition order impugned is dated 23.01.2017 vide which complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has filed a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction to SHO to register an FIR u/s 420/468/471 IPC against the respondent. It is alleged in the complaint that respondent has filed a suit for specific performance titled as Razia Ansar Vs. Bakhtiawar Jahan & Ors. which is pending adjudication in the court of Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts. In that suit respondent has filed dissolution deed dated 17.12.2004 executed between Dr. S.M. Ansar Ahmed, Smt. Bakhtiawar Jahan and Smt. Qumar Jahan Qureshi, mutual agreement dated 07.12.2004 executed between Smt. Bakhtiawar Begum, Smt. Qumar Jahan Qureshi and Smt. Razia Ansar, receipt of ₹ 1 lakhs dated 07.12.2004 and receipt dated 07.12.2004. She had personally seen these documents and has not signed any of the said documents and these documents have not been CR No. 104/17 Bakhtiawar Jahan Vs. Razia Ansar Page No. 1/5 executed by her. Her signatures on these documents are forged and fabricated. Respondent has forged the said documents to be used in the court against her to cause her wrongful loss and to cheat her. She filed a police report with SHO, P.S. Subzi Mandi against the respondent on 11.08.2010 but police authorities have not taken any action as the respondent is highly influential. In the background of these facts petitioner sought registration of FIR for the offence u/s 193/420/468/471 IPC.
3. In pre-summoning evidence petitioner examined three witnesses. Petitioner has examined herself as CW-1 and proved the dissolution deed as Ex. CW-1/A, mutual agreement as Ex. CW-1/B, receipts Ex. CW-1/C & Ex. CW-1/D and complaint made to police as Ex. CW-1/E. CW-2 Sh. Syed Sarfraz Ahmed is a handwriting expert and finger print expert. He has proved his report as Ex. CW-2/A, photographs as Ex. CW-2/B and negatives as Ex. CW-2/C. CW-3 Sh. B.N Shrivastva is also handwriting expert and has proved his report as Ex. CW-3/A.
5. Heard the arguments of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Sh. Kshitij Mahipal, Ld. Counsel for respondent. Perused the trial court record.
6. The Ld. Counsel for petitioner has contended that the impugned order is contrary to settled principles of law. It has been stated that the Ld. Trial Court on one hand has held that signatures of petitioner on documents are forged as such forgery of documents committed by the respondent is proved but on the other hand it has been held that statutory complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. is mandatory. It has been stated that Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the complaint on wrong notions that the sole purpose of creating a document is to produce it in evidence in a court, section 192/193 IPC only are attracted and this arguments is liable to be rejected. It has been stated that petitioner has been able to CR No. 104/17 Bakhtiawar Jahan Vs. Razia Ansar Page No. 2/5 establish the commission of offences of forgery of documents, signatures and cheating by respondent to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. In support of his submissions, Ld. counsel has relied upon the judgment dated 25.8.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C. No. 1181/2013 in case of Pegasus Computers Vs. State.
7. Ld. Counsel for respondent has submitted that alleged fake documents are already lying tendered before the court of Ld. ADJ and respondent/plaintiff was cross examined on behalf of petitioner/defendant. It is further stated that there are two seller of the said property, the other seller Smt. Qumar Jahan has admitted to have executed the transfer documents. It has been stated that Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint.
8. As per the impugned order, the Ld. trial court after appreciating the per-summoning evidence led by petitioner has concluded that the forgery of the signature prima facie stands proved. But Ld. trial court has further observed that it appears that the purpose of making these document was to use them as evidence in the civil court and accordingly it is squarely covered under Section 192/193 IPC, hence penal provisions attracted in the case falls within the ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
9. Section 195 Cr. P. C. Provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 191 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that court. Here as per the facts of the present case, as per the petitioner, respondent has filed suit for specific performance against the petitioner on the basis of forged documents, i.e. dissolution deed, mutual agreement and a receipt all dated 7.12.2004. The short point to be decided by this court is whether under these circumstances petitioner could have filed a separate CR No. 104/17 Bakhtiawar Jahan Vs. Razia Ansar Page No. 3/5 criminal complaint or the court where these alleged forge documents are filed only could have filed a complaint in that case.
10. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these documents were not forged by respondent during the pendency of the court proceedings but after forging these documents, respondent has filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner, hence, this case is out of the purview of Section 195 Cr.P.C. However, the sole contention raised on behalf of respondent is that Ld. trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint by observing that facts of the case are squarely covered under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
11. In support his contention, Ld. counsel for petitioner has relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in Pegasus Computers (supra). The relevant para 9 runs as under:-
"A perusal of clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. goes to show that there can be two interpretations. Firstly, an offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of IPC is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document, which is subsequently produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, a complaint by the Court would be necessary. Secondly, when a document has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court and thereafter an offence described as aforesaid is committed in respect thereof, a complaint by the Court would be necessary. If the second interpretation is accepted, the offence as described in the Section is committed prior to production or giving in evidence of the document in Court, no complaint by Court would be necessary and a private complaint would be maintainable."
12. In para 10, the court has discussed the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar [(1998) 2 SCC 493] where court has observed that bar contained in CR No. 104/17 Bakhtiawar Jahan Vs. Razia Ansar Page No. 4/5 Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in the court.
13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Pegasus Computers (supra), the bar created under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to Ld. trial court with the directions to decide the matter afresh. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Ld. trial court on 30.3.2017.
14. The trial court record along with copy of this order be sent back.
15. File of the revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (SANJAY GARG-I)
on 21st March, 2017 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC Act)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR No. 104/17 Bakhtiawar Jahan Vs. Razia Ansar Page No. 5/5