Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

―Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 195(1)(b)(ii) and 340- Offence with regard to forgery of document- If a document was forged and thereafter produced in the Court, then aggried party can file a complaint-Bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) will not apply-Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceedsing in any court i.e., during the time when the document was in custodial egis.‖ CRL.M.C. 1991/2012 and other connected petitions Since in the present case the forgery is alleged to have been committed prior to filing of the documents before the Court, so in view of the abovesaid case-law, the bar of Sec.195(1)(b)(ii)Cr.P.C is not attracted in the present case.‖
―23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred CRL.M.C. 1991/2012 and other connected petitions to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words ―court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice‖. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause
―25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh [(1998) 2 SCC 493] after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large.‖ CRL.M.C. 1991/2012 and other connected petitions
*** V. The said application deserves to be dismissed because the law relating to the bar engrafted in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in the court. As such, the documents forgery of which have been committed were not the custodia legis.‖