Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19.Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the applicants, the Court has to satisfy two requirements of law before granting sanction for prosecution under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The first being that the Court has to hold a preliminary enquiry in regard to the allegation. Secondly, it has to record its satisfaction for ordering prosecution. It is not mandatory and compulsory for the Court to order prosecution under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, even if it is satisfied that the allegations are prima facie true. In the instant case, no preliminary enquiry was conducted and that the respondent was not even examined as a witness. Thus, giving go-by to all the relevant Rules and Regulations, the learned Master has passed the impugned order. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 (Igbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows_ 23.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 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. In that case, no enquiry was conducted by the learned Master before passing the order.