Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Apart from this, the appellants had forged the signatures of defendant no.1 on fake agreement for sale dt. 28.7.2005 (Ex.D-13) and this document was fabricated by the appellants for the purpose of raising housing loan of Rs.6.25 crores from the Punjab National Bank and it had also been got exhibited on 3 of 18 CRA-S-692-SB of 2018 (O&M) -4- the judicial file as Ex.D-13 by Sh.V.K. Arora, official of the Punjab National Bank who had brought the complete file with regard to the housing loan applied by the plaintiffs and had been summoned by the plaintiffs themselves and forgery of this document is proved as this document/agreement to sell does not find mention in the entire pleadings of the parties as well as entire evidence led by the plaintiffs, therefore, Sh. Hamrit Singh, while appearing as PW-1 did not answer in this regard during his cross-examination and this fact proves on record that this document has been submitted to the Punjab National Bank by the appellants at the time of applying for housing loan because the bank was not ready to sanction loan on the basis of the original documents signed by the defendants and only in order to facilitate sanctioning of loan, the plaintiffs had fabricated these documents and submitted the same before the bank authorities and later on had produced the same in the court. During his cross-examination, the plaintiff has stated that prior to agreement for sale, there was an agreement which was ultimately destroyed due to change in terms and conditions in deal and said agreement was superseded by Ex.P-2. The copy of destroyed/cancelled agreement alongwith copy of Ex.P-2 may have been submitted for obtaining the loan. Although the plaintiff had tried to manipulate the facts by stating in his cross- examination that "I cannot state that if Mark B is the photocopy of the destroyed agreement which was submitted with the bank alongwith Ex.P-2". However, it has come in the evidence of PW- 3 Sh.V.K. Arora, Senior Manager that Ex.D-13 was the only agreement for sale submitted by the plaintiffs for sanction of the loan which falsify the version of the plaintiff who has admitted the signatures on this document.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellants have prima facie committed two offences. One forgery of the documents and second utilization of the forged documents by producing the same in the Court with a view to influence the Administration of Justice by the Court. He submitted that the discretion is always with the Civil Court to initiate the proceedings or not. He further submitted that the judgments passed by the Constitutional Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (supra) holds that the bar under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable or not if documents are forged before being produced in the Court. He submitted that Hon'ble Constitutional Bench only laid down that the bar to file a private complaint 6 of 18 CRA-S-692-SB of 2018 (O&M) -7- at the behest of a party as provided under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would not be applicable if a document is forged outside the Court and thereafter, produced in the Court. He submitted that even in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sachida Nand's case (supra), it is nowhere been laid down that the Court is debarred from directing or initiating the proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He further submitted that no doubt, the learned trial Court had refused to initiate the proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code which has been upheld, however, on careful reading of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dated 05.07.2017, it is apparent that the learned Court had dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the discretion vest in the trial Court to initiate proceedings or not. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also refused to interfere on the ground that it is a dispute between two private individuals. Hence, he submitted that the order passed while dismissing the revision petition would not operate as issue estoppel for the learned First Appellate Court while deciding the first appeal arising from the Civil Court.

12 of 18 CRA-S-692-SB of 2018 (O&M) -13- maintainable. The question which requires consideration is which of the two interpretations should be accepted having regard to the scheme of the Act and object sought to be achieved."

A judgment passed by a Constitutional Bench is not to be read in the manner learned counsel for the appellant wants to be read. The judgment passed by the Superior Court is no doubt binding on all the Court in India, however, the judgment is not required to be read as a statute. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is be understood and applied in the context it was delivered. It is also well settled that the only ratio dissendie is binding and not obitar dicta. Hon'ble Constitutional Bench while deciding the Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (supra) was resolving conflict of opinion in the case of Surjit Singh Vs. Balbir Singh, 1996(3) SCC 533 and Sachida Nand's case (supra). The Hon'ble Constitutional Bench only upheld that the view expressed that view in Sachida Nand's case is correct interpretation of the law. In the case of Sachida Nand, it is nowhere been laid down that even if the Court comes to a conclusion that attempt has been made to interfere in the administration of justice by production of documents which to the knowledge of the parties were forged, the Court is debarred from directing initiation of proceedings. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any substance in the first argument of learned counsel for the appellant. It will be noted that if the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, the litigants would feel encouraged to produce forged and fabricated documents in evidence with a view to secure the judgment in their favour without having any fear of the action by the Court may decide to take. It has rightly been observed by the learned First Appellate Court that if the Court finds that a 13 of 18 CRA-S-692-SB of 2018 (O&M) -14- forged document has been produced in the Court, then every attempt should be made to ensure that the culprit does not go scot-free. This Court is also of the considered view that the opinion of the learned First Appellate Court does not suffer from any error. It will be noted that learned counsel for the appellant did not address any argument on the prima facie finding of the learned First Appellate Court regarding prima facie conclusion of the forgery of the documents produced in evidence.