2005 (12) TMI 553 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of forgery and tampering of documents.
2. False statements and incorrect addresses provided by the plaintiff.
3. Applicability and scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C.
4. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
5. Expediency in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

Allegation of Forgery and Tampering of Documents:
The defendant filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that the plaintiff and his accomplices tampered with a receipt dated 20th October 2004 by erasing the typed word "cash" and the figure Rs. 30,000/- and substituting them with handwritten "cash" and Rs. 2 lacs. The defendant claimed these documents were forged with the intent to use them as evidence in court. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report confirmed tampering, revealing physical disturbances on the paper surface where original writings were removed.

False Statements and Incorrect Addresses Provided by the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff and his witness, Girdhari Lal, were accused of providing incorrect addresses on affidavits, constituting false statements in judicial proceedings. The court noted that the plaintiff admitted to giving incorrect addresses during his statement under Order 10 CPC but refused to explain why. This conduct was seen as an attempt to mislead the court and interfere with the administration of justice.

Applicability and Scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C.:
The court examined whether a prima facie case was made out under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in K. Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier, emphasizing that the court must determine if a prima facie case exists and if it is expedient in the interest of justice to take action. The court held that the plaintiff's actions, including filing false affidavits and tampering with documents, met these criteria.

Jurisdiction of the Court to Entertain the Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.:
The plaintiff's counsel argued that the court lacked jurisdiction as the alleged forgery occurred before the commencement of judicial proceedings. The court rejected this argument, stating that the production of a tampered or forged document during court proceedings falls within the court's jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, which held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. does not apply if the document was forged before being produced in court.

Expediency in the Interest of Justice to Initiate Proceedings:
The court concluded that it was expedient in the interest of justice to direct prosecution of the plaintiff and his accomplices. The court noted that the plaintiff's actions, including tampering with documents and providing false affidavits, affected the administration of justice. The court directed the Registrar to file a complaint against the plaintiff, Ashok Kapoor, and Girdhari Lal under Sections 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 465, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The application against Ms. Priya Kapoor was dismissed due to a lack of specific allegations against her.

Conclusion:
The court found that the plaintiff and his accomplices had tampered with documents and made false statements, affecting the administration of justice. It was held that the court had jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to entertain the application and initiate proceedings. The court directed the Registrar to file a complaint against the plaintiff, Ashok Kapoor, and Girdhari Lal, while dismissing the application against Ms. Priya Kapoor.