Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In support of his submission, Mr. Bhattacharya relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1982 SC 1238 : Chandrapal Singh vs Maharaj Singh and AIR 2000 SC 168 : M.S. Ahlawat vs State of Haryana.

The petition has been opposed by Mr. Roy Choudhury and Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocates for the State and the respondent no.4 respectively.

By referring to the decision reported in (1998) 2 SCC 493 : Sachida Nand Singh vs State of Bihar, Mr. Roy Choudhury contended that an allegation relating to commission of forgery of a document far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court can not be treated as one affecting the administration of justice merely because that document later reached the records of the learned Magistrate's Court; therefore, the bar in Section 195(1)(b) is not applicable in the present case and the learned Magistrate committed no error in directing registration of F.I.R. and conducting investigation since the complaint, prima facie, discloses commission of cognizable offence. He, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

He also relied on the decision in Sachida Nand Singh (supra). Additionally, he relied on the decision reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101 : Iqbal Singh Marwah vs Meenakshi Marwah wherein the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held, in view divergence of views of two benches of equal strength, that Sachida Nand Singh (supra) had been correctly decided. He contended on the basis thereof that only when forgery of a document is committed when the same is in custodia legis that the bar in Section 195(b)(ii) would be applicable. Admittedly, no offence in respect of the affidavit purported to have been filed by the respondent no.4 before the learned Magistrate on 28.5.2009 was committed after it reached the Court's records and, therefore, the petitioners can have no cause for grievance in respect of investigation of the complaint of the respondent no.4.

That apart, Mr. Chatterjee is right in pointing out that forgery, if at all, was committed before the notary and not at or after the time when the affidavit had been taken on record by the learned Magistrate. In other words, had forgery of the document i.e. the affidavit been committed when in custodia legis, the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would apply. This conclusion follows from the law declared in Sachida Nand Singh (supra), since approved in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra). In the present case, the complaint leveling allegation of commission of offence punishable under Sections 467/419/120B of the IPC takes it beyond the purview of the prohibition contained in Section 195 of the CrPC and the learned Magistrate cannot be held to have committed jurisdictional error in entertaining the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and passing order thereon.