Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

43.As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, unlike the cases cited on the side of the petitioners, the act of forgery alleged herein is in respect of kist receipts obtained from the revenue department and hence, amounts to an act of forgery of public documents and the same cannot hence be brushed aside lightly, but ought to have been viewed very seriously. It is rightly argued on the prosecution side that the compromise of personal dispute between the individuals, who are in no way of concerned with the act of forgery of kist receipts will have no impact upon criminal proceedings initiated for the offences under section 465, 468 and 471 IPC. Even in the event of the failure on the part of the individuals to depose in support of the allegations regarding the act of forgery of public documents, the same is not likely to affect the case of the prosecution, as the prosecution may still be able to establish the same through the evidence of the departmental personnel and through relevant documents maintained in the department, as such, this court by applying the view expressed by the Supreme court in the judgments reported in (i) Rumi Dhar (smt.) V. State of West Bengal and another (2009 (6) SCC 364), (ii) JT 2012 3 SCC 469 Ashok Sadarangani and another v. Union of India; (iii)Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of investigation and another (2011) 5 SCC 708 (iv) CBI v. Ravishankar Prasad (2009) 6 SCC 351 and (v)Ram Dhan v. State of UP and another (2012 5 SCC 536), is of the view that the criminal proceedings in respect of the offences for act of forgery under sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of the settlement between the individuals. The Supreme Court has in Ashok Sadarangani case dismissed the petition for quash by observing that "in the case at hand, where the emphasis is more on the criminal intend of the petitioners than on the civil aspect involving dues of the Bank in respect of which a compromise was worked out". Such observation of the Apex court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

12. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the court and long before its production in the court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the court records..........
23. The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court.

para 17.........

18.In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC 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 interests 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 interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(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 remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, 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.