Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 July, 2008
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Criminal Misc. No.62497-M of 2006 (O&M). -1-
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
Criminal Misc. No.62497-M of 2006 (O&M).
Date of decision : 9.7.2008.
Paramjit Singh and others ..... Petitioners.
vs.
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal. Present: Mr.Gurinder Singh, Advocate with
Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent no.1.
Mr.A.K.Kalsy, Advocate, for respondent no.2.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.43 dated 8.9.2000 registered under Sections 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station, Hambran, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Briefly the facts are that FIR came to be recorded against the petitioners on a complaint filed by respondent no.2 for the reason that the petitioners had forged a Kabja certificate and on that basis got interim stay of dispossession from the civil court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two fold arguments for seeking quashing of the FIR, namely, that the complaint in the present set up circumstances should have been filed through the court or on an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. should have been filed. However, both the arguments have no merit. In the present case it is the admitted position on record that the allegations against the petitioners are that kabja certificate was forged before the filing of the suit in the civil court meaning thereby that offence of forging the document was committed before the start of the proceedings before the court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan (dead) vs State of Maharashtra 1994 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 673, opined that where Criminal Misc. No.62497-M of 2006 (O&M). -2- the offence of forging was committed before the start of proceedings before the court, there was no bar for the criminal court to take cognizance in respect of the offence. Para 3 thereof can be referred to which is extracted below:-
"Leave was granted limited to the question of sanction as required under Section 195 of the Criminal P.C. of 1973. It was contended before the High Court that under Section 195, Cr.P.C. of 1973, the complaint should be filed by the court concerned and then the Criminal Court can take congizance of the offences mentioned under Section 195 (1) (b), Cr.P.C. The submission was based on the ground that in the instant case, the charge-sheet was filed in 1975 and hence the provisions of Section 195, Cr.P.C. were attracted since the complaint was not filed by the Revenue Court before which a proceeding was deemed to be pending and the alleged offences of forgery were committed in respect of documents produced or given in evidence in such proceedings. In other words, the submission is that when offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of documents produced or given in evidence in the proceedings in a Revenue Court and since that Revenue Court has not filed any complaint, the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. On behalf of the State it was contended that in the instant case, a complaint was filed long before the new Code came into force and the offences thereby deemed to have been committed before the proceedings commenced. Therefore, the question of Revenue Court's giving the complaint did not arise. This aspect has been considered by the High Court in great detail. Regarding the offences committed before the start of the proceedings, the High Court, in our view, has rightly held that no complaint is necessary by the court concerned either in the old Code or in the new Code. Therefore, the contention that the Criminal Misc. No.62497-M of 2006 (O&M). -3- absence of a complaint by the Revenue Court was a bar for taking congizance by the Criminal Court in respect of these offences which were committed even before the start of the proceedings before the Revenue Court cannot be sustained. The view taken by the High Court appears to be correct".
Accordingly, there is no bar for continuance of proceedings on the basis of FIR registered against the petitioners.
For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed.
9.7.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge