Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The prime contention raised by the learned counsel for 2026:KER:27895 the appellant is based on the Constitution Bench decision reported in [AIR 2005 SC 2119], Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi etc., with reference to paragraph 18 of the judgment. In paragraph 18, the Apex Court observed as under:

"18. 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 interests 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 2026:KER:27895 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."

5. Apart from the said decision, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a 3 Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in [2002(1) SCC 253 : AIR 2002 SC 236], Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and Others, where the Apex Court observed as under:

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 2026:KER:27895 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 the said case, the question considered by the Apex Court was whether the embargo under Section 195 of Cr.P.C would be applicable when the allegation that the documents which are sought to be used as evidence were already fabricated and forged prior to filing of evidence. Notifying 2026:KER:27895 the said decision, the Apex Court, after referring Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh's case (supra) and Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar's case (supra), held that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court, i.e during the time when the document is custodia legis. In another decision reported in [2024 KHC OnLine 8379 : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 717], Arockiasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Apex Court took the view that there is no embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) to examine the criminal allegation of forgery of documents filed in Court, when such forgery is committed before its production in Court. In the said case, the allegation was that the accused therein fraudulently had obtained stamp paper and prepared an unregistered sale agreement. Thereafter the suit was filed by the accused seeking certain reliefs and in the suit the forged document was filed. Thus the allegation would not show that the documents were forged when the matter was sub-judice before the court and it was held therein that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would not attract.