Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In case of wider view, there is a scope for misuse of the provisions also. Suppose 'A' fabricates a document. After that he files a suit against 'B' representing that the document is to be used for some collateral purpose in that suit. 'B' challenges the document describing it as a forgery and fabrication. A later on withdraws the suit or permits it to be dismissed for default. Can it be said that 'B' has no remedy by way of prosecution for the forgery of the document against him, except for applying to the Civil Court under Section 340 of the new Code for making enquiry and then making a complaint under Section 195 of the new Code. Alternatively even if the case filed by 'A' was decided by the Civil Court on merits, but when the proceedings are going on, 'B' did not have material in his possession to prove that the document was forged or for some reason could not produce that in that Court, where the civil suit was proceeding, should it be taken that 'B' will have no remedy except approaching the Court in which the document was earlier produced for making a complaint and leading that evidence, which he later on discovered and has in his possession. This would mean an enquiry independent of the record of the case on a new and fresh material and such a procedure was not favoured in Patel's case, 1971 Cri LJ 1437 : (AIR 1971 SC 1935). The forger may even prolong the proceedings in a Civil Court such instances can be multiplied. Thus the wider view of Section 195(1)(b)(iii) is likely to frustrate or even defeat the interest of justice.
It would thus be clear that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the foundation of forgery, it produced before the Court or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) gets attracted....
12... In this case since cognizance was already taken before filing of the document in the Civil Court and the original has not been filed before cognizance was taken, the High Court was right in directing that the Magistrate is at liberty to proceed with the trial of the criminal case.

(Underlined by us)

29. Learned Counsel for the applicant also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopalkrishna Menon AIR 1983 SC 1053 (supra). He however contended that the observations of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harbans Singh's case (AIR 1987 Punj & Har 19) (supra) in paragraph 18 that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the new Code is limited in its operation only to the offences mentioned in the section if committed in regard to "a document produced or given in evidence in such proceedings while the document is in custody of the Court" may not be correct. We have considered this aspect carefully. With due regard to Hon. Judges deciding the case of Harbans Singh (supra) we would make it clear that if by the words 'while the document is in custody of the Court' it was meant that the bar would apply only when the forgery has been committed in regard to a document while it was in custody of the Court and not otherwise, then we find ourselves to be not in agreement with the said interpretation. However if the term 'while the document is in custody of the Court' is to be interpreted to mean that a document which has been forged and has close nexus or has proximity to the proceedings in the Court and the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply in relation of such a document only when that document is in custody of the Court, then this interpretation meets our full approval.

30. We are conscious of the fact that taking advantage of the legal provision relating to bar of a criminal prosecution at the instance of an aggrieved party, some unscrupulous elements after forging document may file it in a proceeding before a Court claiming relief on its basis, and thereafter in connivance with either the process server or a postman may get a false endorsement of service of notice on the defendant shown against whom some relief may be sought. The defendant in such a situation being not really served with the notice may never come to know of the proceeding pending in the Court. The Suit may then be decreed ex parte and the judgment may become final. The unscrupulous plaintiff may then never take back the forged document from the Court's record. Ultimately much later the defendant may come to know about the forgery and then apply for action against the unscrupulous plaintiff for forgery. The plaintiff may then plead that proceedings against his are barred under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the Court which decided the case had not directed his prosecution. We have no doubt in our mind that in such a situation the plea of bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would not be available to him. There are two clear reasons to support our view. Firstly it is settled proposition of law that 'fraud' once played on Courts vitiate entire proceedings. Hence, once it is alleged that such a decree was obtained by playing fraud, that decree would be a nullity. Secondly to attract the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) it is elementary that the question of forgery had been pleaded by a party in relation to that document and the Court had applied its mind to that question. It is only when the Court has come to a definite conclusion that the document had not been forged that the." protection of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) becomes available to the party against whom the forgery is alleged. That is the meaning and concept of providing safeguard to a party or witness from frivolous or vexatious prosecution. Hence' it is made clear that if the plea of forgery has not been considered by any Court the question of bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not arise.