Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. The documents in the form of agreements are the basis of Company Petition No. 2 of 1994, pending before the Company Court being in High Court in original side, and the genuineness and forgery of those documents can very well be decided by the Company Court on the basis of the evidence led by respective parties and as such the instant criminal complaint pending before the court below is statutorily barred by section 195/340 r/w 192 Cr.P.C. and the impugned criminal prosecution by way of criminal complaint in respect forgery of documents as alleged at the instance of 'Court' as defined under section 195 Cr.P.C. would be permissible and the criminal prosecution by way of instant criminal complaint at the instance of private complainant would be impermissible in view of the fact that section 195 of Cr.P.C. provides that no Court shall take cognizance in respect of cheating and forgery etc. can be instituted except on complaint in writing of that Court.

367. Section 467 relates to forgery of such documents as valuable securities and of other documents mentioned.
368. Section 468 deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. The offence is complete as soon as there was forgery with a particular intent.
369. Section 471 deals with using as genuine a forged document. For the purpose of convicting an accused under section 467 read with section 471 IPC, it has to be show that an accused either knew or has reason to believe that the document was forged.

29. In Prabatbhai Aahir @ Prabatbhai and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another [(2017) 9 SCC 641], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of Investigation v Maninder Singh by a bench of two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to the power under Section 482:

14. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R Vasanthi Stanley5, the court rejected the submission that the first respondent was a 4 (2016) 1 SCC 389 5 (2016)1 SCC 376 woman "who was following the command of her husband" and had signed certain documents without being aware of the nature of the fraud which was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission, this Court held that:

"... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score..." "...A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system..."