Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is an application filed by the defendant under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) against the plaintiff Kuldeep Kapoor and his accomplices viz. Girdhari Lal, Ashok Kapoor and Ms. Priya Kapoor. This application has been filed in the above suit during its pendency. According to the defendant after putting his signatures on the agreement to sell, he had left the blanks unfilled in clauses 1 and 2 of the said agreement. In clause 4 of the said agreement, he had put signatures just above the said clause and this was done to validate a correction i.e addition of the letter `d' in the word `mature'. The two witnesses attested this document. According to the applicant, the copy of the receipt dated 20th October, 2004 on which the plaintiff has based his suit, is a forged document. Photo copy of the agreement as well as the original receipt had been placed on record as Annexures R-1 and R-2 respectively. The plaintiff and his accomplices not only tampered the receipt by erasing typed word `cash' and written the same in hand but also the typed figure of Rs. 30,000/- and added in hand a figure of Rs. 2 lacs. Thus according to the applicant, Kuldeep Kapoor, Girdhari Lal and Ashok Kapoor have fabricated, tampered and forged the document with an intention to use the same in Court as evidence or otherwise. It is also stated that the plaintiff and his witness Girdhari Lal have intentionally given their incorrect addresses before the Court on affidavit and have therefore made false statement before the Court during judicial proceedings. The agreement and receipt were in possession of the plaintiff and his accomplices, as such they are liable to be prosecuted under Sections 191, 192 of the Indian Penal Code and punishable under Sections 193, 196 and 200 of the Code for forgery of documents and the offences under Sections 463, 464 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 465 of the Code and for the offences under Sections 469 and 470 of the Code punishable under Section 471 of the Code. On this premise, it is prayed that the Court may direct initiation of appropriate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff and his accomplices as afore noticed.

This order was set aside and the matter was remanded by the Sessions Judge to the Trial Court. This order was challenged before the High Court which was dismissed on 15th September, 2000 following the principle laid down in Sachida Nand Singh's case. The order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court which appeals were dismissed. In these circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:-

In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr. P.C. The Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is conditioned by the words Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(i)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remedyless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remedyless, has to be discarded.

20. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh, after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the Court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large.

20. There is more than one aspect to this application. It does not only relate to fabrication or forgery of documents, but also of filing false affidavits before the court.

21. The purpose of enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is a very limited one. Once the ingredients of this Section are satisfied, the court has to conduct a very limited enquiry. As a result of that enquiry the court may record a finding to that effect, or even on the basis of preliminary enquiry make a complaint or send it to a magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction, for the offender to be tried in accordance with law. In the case of Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , the Supreme Court has held that in respect of any document produced or given in evidence, in relation to proceedings in the court, the court is not required to afford any opportunity of hearing to the person against whom it might file a complaint before the Magistrate for initiating prosecution proceedings. The purpose of Section 340 is not to find 'whether a person is guilty or not' but is only to find 'whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence. In the present case, to the application filed by the defendant, the non-applicants/plaintiff had even filed detailed replies, and counsel for the parties were heard at great length. The purpose was to provide an opportunity to the non-applicants, at least to show to the court as to whether it was a case where the court would direct filing of the complaint in compliance to the provisions of Section 340 or even drop the proceedings.