Bombay High Court
C.R. Alimchandani And Others vs T.K. Shah And Another on 13 October, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)BOMCR176, 1999CRILJ2416, 1999(1)MHLJ825
Author: T.K. Chandrashekhara Das
Bench: T.K. Chandrashekhara Das
ORDER T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.
1. This writ petition arises out of complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against petitioners before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, at Esplanade, Bombay bearing Case No. 2167/S/1990 in which it is alleged that the petitioner had committed offence under sections 465 and 466 read with section 34 of I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vasni submits that no offence has been disclosed in the complaint and therefore Magistrate ought not to have issued process against the petitioner. In order to appreciate this argument, I have to refer to Para 2 and 3 of the complaint which reads as under "2. Accused No. 1 is the Chairman and Managing Director, and is in overall control of the affairs of said M/s. Stup Consultants Ltd.. Accused No. 2 is the Principal Manager, Finance and Company Secretary and Accused No. 3 is the Joint Secretary and Manager (Finance) all of Stup Consultants Ltd. having their registered office at Bombay. All the accused in furtherance of the common intention have committed forgery and forged a document viz.. Inspection Extract in respect of A Ward No. 1316 (2-2A) 888-12, General Jagannathrao B. Road bearing No. W.O.A./2238/A.C. of 72-73, the facts of which are set out in the following paragraphs :
3. The accused, on behalf of the said company in their aforesaid R.A.N. APPLN. No. 136 of 1988 filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay have deliberately made the false statement on oath vide the Affidavit of Accused No. 2 dated 13th July, 1989, with the intention prejudicing the mind of the Hon'ble Court and thereby gaining undue advantage of snatching an ex-parte order for fixation of very low ad-interim rent of Rs. 1,357.50 on 17th July, 1989 based on the aforesaid certificate. The said order has been vacated and the said company has been ordered on 21st December, 1989 to pay to my mother a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month plus all the permitted increases. The said order was also modified by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision Appln. No. 252 of 1990 on 26th/28th March, 1990 and again on 19th June, 1990 and the said company is ordered to deposit in the Small Causes Court a sum of Rs. 58,710/- towards the permitted increases, which is subject to final adjustment, if any."
2. From the above averments, it can be seen that the petitioner No. 2 had filed an affidavit in R.A.N. Application No. 136 of 1988 filed in the Small Causes Court, Bombay. While filing the said affidavit, he has produced a zerox copy of the certificate purported to have been issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation having signed by Asstt. Assessor & Collector A-Ward stipulating that the rent for the flat which is a subject matter of the dispute in R.A.C. Application No. 136 of 1988 yielded rent for Rs. 1,620/- for the year 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and Rs. 2,800/- for the year 1972-73. The complaint also quoted the portion of the affidavit which reads as follows :
"I say that the Applicants were also relying upon the Municipal Certificate obtained by them bearing No. W.O.A./2238/A.C. of 72-73 wherein the rent of these premises were shown as Rs. 1,620/- per month. I shall rely upon the said certificate in support of this Affidavit in reply."
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. Mohite submits that in view of the allegations contained in the complaint and with the aid of section 34 all the accused are liable to be prosecuted for the production of false documents before the Court. I do not find any substance in this submission. In order to implicate the petitioner for the commission of the offence of 464 and 466, it is incumbent upon the part of the complainant to plead the role of each accused in the making or manufacturing of the document in question. Instead of showing that, wholesale statement has been made that all the accused have committed the offence under sections 465 and 466. According to me in order to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner, the allegation contained in the complaint case is not sufficient. What is necessary at the time of issuing summons against the accused by the Magistrate is that if the allegation as it stands has been proved, whether on that allegations the accused were liable to be convicted. Such wholesale and casual allegations definitely give cleavage for the accused to escape. Therefore, in the nature of offence, the manner in which the document has been concocted has to be clearly and meticulously pleaded then only the creation of the false document as defined under sections 465 and 466 can be established. The Supreme Court in between Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, held that:
"legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the rest to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence."
4. In view of this, the allegation contained in the complaint, as extracted above are not sufficient to implicate the accused except Accused No. 2 namely petitioner No. 2 herein. Such allegations will be sufficient to implicate a single individual. If a joint act of forging is alleged, it is incumbent on the complainant to plead the roll played by the each individual. The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Mohite submits that the document has relied upon by other petitioners for their benefit and therefore, nothing was wrong in implicating these persons also in the offence. With great respect, I cannot agree with that submission. Forging a document and using the forged document are quite different and distinct offence. The reliance on the false documents will not ipso facto implicate the person who relied upon, under sections 465 and 466. As I noticed earlier, there is no mention about the role that has been played by each of the accused in the manufacture of the false documents with the other accused. As far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, since he has produced along with this affidavit, it can be said that prima facie case is disclosed against him.
5. Both the Counsel brought to my notice that in subsequent civil proceedings the Civil Court has issued notice to the petitioners under section 340 of Cr.P.C. for prosecuting them and in view of this Shri Vashi submits that this complaint is not maintainable even against petitioner No. 2. I do not propose to express any opinion about this at this juncture since it is a development after filing this writ petition. I am only supposed to examine the legality or otherwise of the action of the Magistrate issuing process against petitioners. In view of the above discussion, I feel that no offence is disclosed against accused except Accused No. 2. Other accused has to be deleted from the complaint.
6. In the result, writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The process issued by Magistrate against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 is quashed.
The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial against petitioner No. 2 and decide the case within four months from today.
7. After pronouncement of the Judgement, the learned Counsel for the respondent prayed for stay of the Judgment for four weeks. In the circumstances, prayer is granted. Judgement is stayed for the period of four weeks.
Rule made absolute in the above terms.
C.C. expedited.
8. Petition allowed.