Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Though elaborate arguments were advanced by both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as on behalf of the official respondents as to whether the action of the 4th respondent in directing the petitioner to approach the NCLT for the redressal of the complaint is justified or not. It is submitted by the learned counsel to the petitioner that the understanding of the respondent authority with regard to the application of the provisions of Section 195 of CRPC is clearly misplaced for the reason that the said provision would be applicable only if an offence is committed after a case is filed into the court. Since the case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent had resorted to forgery in order to file a case against the petitioner, the said provision has no application. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the provisions of Section 195 of CRPC would get attracted when an act of forgery takes place while the document is in the custody of the court i.e., custodia legis. It is also further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the provisions of Section 190 of CRPC, the application of section 195 of CRPC would arise only when a court takes cognizance of an offence. On the other hand, the petitioner having approached the respondent police authorities on noticing the act of forgery resorted to by the 5th respondent even before the filing of the case, the claim being made by the official respondent is untenable. The learned counsel would submit that since the complaint made by the petitioner discloses a cognizable offence, the respondent authorities are required to register an FIR. In support of the above submissions the learned counsel has relied on the following decisions :

 i)         Lalita Kumari V. Govt of UP and others1 ;



    (2014) 2 SCC 1





        ii)      M. Narayandas V. State of Karnataka and others2 ;

        iii)     Iqbal Singh Marwah & another V. Meenakshi
                 Marwah3 ;

        iv)      Legal Remembrancer of Govt of W.B. V. Haridas
                 Mundra4 ;

        v)       Sachida Nand Singh & another V. State of Bihar5 ;

        vi)      Nirmaljit Singh Hoon V. State of W.B & another6 ;

8. Per contra the learned AGP would submit that since the matter is sub judice before the NCLT, and as it relates to dispute which is civil in nature the 4th respondent authority having regard to the provisions of the section 195 CRPC had directed the petitioner to approach the said court which in turn can lodge complaint for investigating into the alleged act of forgery in respect of a document filed into the court. The learned AGP would also further submit that even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari (1 supra), the respondent police authorities are required to cause an enquiry and cannot register a case straightaway on the complaint when such complaint relates to commercial dispute. Since, the dispute of alleged act of forgery relates to commercial transaction between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent, the respondent authorities after conducting preliminary enquiry had issued notice to the petitioner with regard to the action taken on the (2003) 11 SCC 251 (2005) 4 SCC 370 (1976) 1 SCC 555 (1998) 2 SCC 493 (1973) 3 SCC 753 complaint made, and informing the petitioner to approach the NCLT and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said notice, it is open for the petitioner to approach appropriate forum to avail the remedies in accordance with law against the said action of the official respondent u/s. 340 of Cr. P.C. and the High Court cannot direct registration of an FIR based on the complaint so made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of the above submission, learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of - Sakiri Vasu V. State of U.P.7

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment while rejecting the submission made on behalf of the appellant by observing "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." further in para 25 and 26 of the judgement held as under -

25. 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 he highly detrimental to the interest of society at large.

In Statutory Interpretation............ Therefore, in order that a victim of a crime of forgery, namely, the person aggrieved is able to exercise his right conferred by law to initiate prosecution of the offender, it is necessary to place a restrictive interpretation on clause

(b)(ii).

11. From a reading of the above, it would be clear that if an act of forgery is resorted to and using such forged document a proceeding is laid in any court, the provisions of Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of Cr. P.C., does not prohibit the victim from filing a complaint either with the police or before the magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.