Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

requesting the Court to conduct a preliminary enquiry and file a complaint against the concerned respondents for the offences affecting the administration of justice. It is further argued that the appellants are not seeking to establish the guilt of the respondents at this stage, but are only invoking the Courts' statutory power to act when its process is being abused through forged documents.

Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another1 (Iqbal Singh Marwah) to contend that if the offence of forgery is committed with the intent to use the forged document in the Court proceedings, the Court's sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is required and in the instant case, the (2005) 4 SCC 370 NC: 2025:KHC:17619-DB fabricated witnesses statements were used to influence the judicial mind during the stage of taking cognizance and trial proceedings. There are justifiable reasons to invoke Section 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel argues that allowing the use of fabricated witnesses' statements in judicial proceedings strikes at the heart of judicial integrity. It is not merely a procedural lapse but an act of interference in the administration of justice - one that must be dealt with sternly by initiating action under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17619-DB witnesses, not for initiating criminal proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case learned counsel would argue that the test "during the course of proceedings" is not met, and referring to the landmark judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case learned counsel would argue that, where a forged document is created before it is produced in the Court and is not forged during the course of judicial proceedings, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted. It is argued that the documents alleged to be fabricated were created prior to filing in the Court (as part of the investigation) then the appellants cannot invoke Section 195 or file an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The alleged forgery as contended by the appellants did not take place "in relation to a proceedings in a Court" as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that moreover the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and are meant only for investigation purposes. These are not "documents used in evidence", in the strict legal

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17619-DB sense. Therefore, even if there were discrepancies, though not admitting, they do not meet the threshold requirement under Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C for triggering prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Further it is submitted that Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not intended to be invoked casually or for tactical purposes. It is the discretionary power of the Court, to be exercised only when it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute a person for an offence affecting judicial proceedings. In support, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Debbarma Alias Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura2 (Ashok Debbarma).

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17619-DB document is later produced in the Court does not attract the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. The Apex Court emphasized that the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

applies only when an offence is committed with respect to a document after it has been filed in Court or during the course of judicial proceedings, intending to interfere with the administration of justice. The Apex Court held that sub-section 1 of Section 340 Cr.P.C. contemplates holding a preliminary inquiry. Normally, a direction for filing a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded and final judgment is rendered. A cursory reading of Section 340 of Cr.P.C.