Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Heard Shri Harshit Tolia, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Shri Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent no.1-State and Shri B.M. Mangukiya, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2- complainant. In this petition it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that essentially the dispute is of civil nature. In spite of the same, HC-NIC Page 6 of 12 Created On Thu Apr 07 02:35:59 IST 2016 based on false complaint filed by respondent no.2, crime is registered under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. It is submitted that having regard to the allegations of forgery on the notice issued under section 135(D) of the BLR Code, such notice cannot be termed as valuable security within the meaning of section 30 of IPC. No case is made out under section 467 of IPC. It is also pleaded that such forgery does not relate to a will, thus no offence is made under section 467 of the IPC, so as to allow investigating agency to proceed with investigation. It is submitted that even in respect of offence under section 468 of IPC, no case is made out, on the face of the allegation, as it is not alleged to be forgery for purpose of cheating. It is pleaded that in any event as the allegation may attract offence under Chapter-XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 195 of IPC, procedure as contemplated under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be followed. Only the revenue court is competent to lodge complaint. No case can be registered by entertaining complaint filed by respondent no.2. To substantiate his argument the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Salvaraja A. Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59 and also on an unreported judgment of this Court in case of Kirtibhai Jamanbhai Alias Jamanadasbhai Vadaliya and another Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Revision Application No.222 of 2013 dated 08.01.2016, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this HC-NIC Page 7 of 12 Created On Thu Apr 07 02:35:59 IST 2016 Court in the case of Prakash Ramchandra Barot and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in 2011 (3) GLH 211.

8. Based on such complaint made by respondent no.2, case is registered against the applicants- accused for offence under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. It does not relate to forgery of valuable security, will, etc. from perusal of provision under section 467 of IPC, it is true that it appears that there is no allegation made with regard to valuable security within the meaning of section 467 of IPC, but at the same time whether forgery was for the purpose of cheating or not within the meaning of section 468 of IPC is a matter for investigation. At the stage of considering the application filed under section 482 of the Code of HC-NIC Page 9 of 12 Created On Thu Apr 07 02:35:59 IST 2016 Criminal Procedure this Court cannot go into correctness of such allegations. It is for the investigating authorities to investigate on the complaint, and to file appropriate Final Report, as contemplated under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. When it is alleged against the applicants of forging the signature of late father of respondent no.2, whether it is for the purpose of cheating within the meaning of section 415 of the IPC, it is also a matter for investigation. Whether allegations attract offence alleged or not is a matter which has to be looked into. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, there cannot be hard and fast rule on the said subject. As this Court is of the view that having perused F.I.R. and the complaint and the reply affidavit filed by respondent no.2, it is not possible to accept the plea of the applicants that no case is made out for the purpose of investigation on the face of F.I.R. which is registered on the complaint made by respondent no.2. Even with regard to the plea of the applicants that offence falls under Chapter-XI of the Code of Civil Procedure there, is bar to proceed with investigation under section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the procedure as contemplated under section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure to be followed, also cannot be accepted as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370. It is clearly held that bar under section 195 of IPC would be attracted only when offence enumerated in section 195 of IPC has been committed with respect HC-NIC Page 10 of 12 Created On Thu Apr 07 02:35:59 IST 2016 to a document, after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, viz. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. The same view is also taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.P. Subhash Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and others (supra) and also in the case of George Bhaktan Vs. Rabindra Lele and others (supra). It is the allegation of respondent no.2 that only in notice issued under section 135(D) of the BLR Code, forgery is committed, forging the signature of father of respondent no.2, as such it cannot be said that such issue falls within the scope of provision of section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure barring taking cognizance of offence, in such event, section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made applicable.