9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the criminal Court is debarred from proceeding with the private complaint for offences punishable under Section 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the Magistrate at Amritsar lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence? Issue 1: The judgment revolves around the question of whether the criminal Court can proceed with a private complaint for offenses under Section 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The case involved a complaint alleging conspiracy, fabrication of an agreement, and forgery of signatures. The appellants argued that the private complaint was not maintainable due to the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which restricts the Court's power to take cognizance of certain offenses related to documents produced in court. The Court analyzed previous judgments to interpret the scope and purpose of Section 195, emphasizing the protection against frivolous prosecutions and the preservation of judicial process integrity. It was held that the criminal Court could proceed with the trial as the original document was filed after cognizance was taken, and the Magistrate had the authority to continue with the case. Issue 2: The second issue focused on whether the Magistrate at Amritsar had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense. The appellants argued that once a document is produced in Court, only the civil Court has jurisdiction over the matter, and a written complaint by the civil Court is necessary. The Court referred to relevant provisions of Section 195 of the Code and analyzed previous cases to determine the applicability of the jurisdictional issue. It was clarified that the purpose of Section 195 is to prevent harassment through private vendettas, maintain the purity of the judicial process, and avoid conflicts between findings of different courts. The judgment highlighted that the Magistrate had the authority to proceed with the trial despite the timing of the document's filing. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Magistrate's jurisdiction to continue with the case and rejecting the argument that the private complaint was not maintainable due to jurisdictional issues.
|
