Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The said provision gives ample powers to the State Commission to entertain complaints where the claim amount exceeds Rs. 50,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs. The State Commission is also a judicial forum discharging judicial duties as per Section 11(5) of the Act. The State Commission being a judicial forum must have power to deal with all situations. The Commission must have ample powers otherwise it will be forced to close its eyes and with folded hands as if it is powerless to give directions even if fraud is played before the State Commission. The same cannot be the intention of the legislature while enacting the J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987. The Act was enacted for the purpose and object to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers for settlement of consumer disputes and matters connected there with and to provide the consumers speedy and simple Redressal of their grievances. It is treated as a quasi judicial machinery and the proceedings having been treated as judicial proceedings, the powers vested with the civil court is bound to be exercised. The decision relied on in the judgment in CIMA No. 136/2009 dated 14.03.2013, namely, (1998) 2 SCC 493 (Sachida Nand Singh and anr v. State of Bihar and anr), was quoted out of context. The judgment of Honble the Supreme Court is very clear that Section 195 (I)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C is not applicable if forgery of the document was committed before the said document was produced before the Court. In these cases the document produced by the complainant was not forged when the documents are in the custody of the State Commission and the forged document was filed which was noticed by the State Commission during enquiry and after prima facie satisfaction the State Commission directed the Inspector General of Police to register the FIR and investigate the matter. In that case Section 195(I)(b) and (c) of the Cr. P. C has no application to the facts of these cases. Under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C the court is entitled to ascertain as to whether any offence effecting administration of justice has been committed by producing a document in court and if offence is committed during the time when the document was custodia legis. If the forged document was filed before the Court/State Commission, the offence has not taken place when the document was in the custody of the Court or Commission. In paragraph 7 of the judgment in Sachida Nand Singhs case (supra) Honble the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

7. A reading of the clause reveals two main postulates for operation of the bar mentioned there.

First is, there must be allegation that an offence I it should be either an offence described in section 463 or any other offence punishable under Sc. 471, 475, 476 of the IPC) has been committed. Second is that such offence should have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. There is no dispute before us that if forgery has been committed while the document was in the custody of a Court, then prosecution can be launched only with a complaint made by that court. There is also no dispute that if forgery was committed with a document which has not been produced in a court then the prosecution would lie at the instance of any person. If so, will its production in a court make all the difference.

13. The facts of the case decided by Honble the Supreme Court were that a complaint was filed by the respondent in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 468, 469 and 471 of the IPC as the appellants had forged the document and produced in the Court of Executive Magistrate which was dealing with proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police as provided in Section 156(3) of the Code. The police registered the FIR on the basis of the said complaint and after investigation laid the charge sheet against the appellants for those offences. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of those offences and issued process to the accused. The said proceedings were sought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, by contending that the Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the said offences in view of the bar contained in Section 195(I)(b)(ii) of the Code. Honble the Supreme Court, after considering various decision and noticing the fact that the forged document was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate after committing forgery, held that Section 195(I)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C is not applicable and dismissed the appeal.

14. In CIMA No. 136/2009 which was disposed of on 14.03.2013 also the forged document was produced before the State Commission and the alleged offence of forgery was not committed when the document was pending before the State Commission. Therefore, with utmost respect, we are unable to subscribe the view taken by the Division Bench in CIMA No. 136/2009 dated 14.03.2013, holding that the State Commission has no power to give directions to register a complaint even if the forged documents are produced before it.