9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67 468 471 read with Section 120B, IPC with the allegations that the appellants had conspired and fabricated an agreement dated July 26, 1978 and forged the signature of Smt. Dalip Kaur and on the basis thereof they attempted to claim retention of the possession of the remaining part of the house. The Magistrate, Amritsar had examined witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, the 'Code'] and ordered issue D of process summoning the appellants to appear on September 27, 1983. It would appear that the appellants filed civil suit for an injunction to restrain Dalip Kaur from interfering with the possession of appellants 1 to 3 and he produced the agreement dated 21.2.1984 which was said to have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence. 3. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) reads that no court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Sections 471 475 or 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court . 4. This Court in Budhu Ram v. State of Rajasthan [1963]3SCR376 considered the scope of Section 195 and held thus : It will be seen on a plain grammatical construction of this provision that a complaint by the court is required where the offence is of forging or of using as genuine any document which is known or believed to be a forged document when such document is produced or given in evidence in court. It is clear ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trol because of their direct impact on the judicial process. It is the judicial process, in other words the administration of public justice, which is the direct and immediate object or victim of these offences and it is only by misleading the courts and thereby perverting the due course of law and justice that the ultimate object of harming the private party is designed to be realised. As the purity of the proceedings of the court is directly sullied by the crime the Court is considered to be the only party entitled to consider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party. The private party designed ultimately to be injured through the offence against the administration of public justice is undoubtedly entitled to move the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... feelings of vindictiveness on the part of the private complainants to harass their opponents and also to avoid confusion which is likely to arise on account of conflicts between findings of the courts in which forged documents are produced or false evidence is led and the conclusions of the criminal courts dealing with the private complaint. It is for this reason as suggested earlier, that the Legislature has entrusted the court, whose proceedings had been the target of the offence of perjury to consider the expediency in the larger public interest, of a criminal trial of the guilty party. 8. The object thereby is to protect persons from needless harassment by prosecution for private vendetta; to preserve purity of the judicial process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the plaint the agreement and also the receipts were produced in the court. Subsequently, a complaint was filed for offence under Sections 467 and 471, IPC. It was contended that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) was a bar. That was negatived by the High Court. This Court considering Sections 340 and 195 of the Code had held that as soon as it is accepted that Section 467 punishes forgery of a particular category, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) immediately gets attracted. On the basis that the offence punishable under Section 467 is an offence under Section 463 committed in the proceedings of the court and in the absence of a complaint by this Court, prosecution was held to be not maintainable. 10. In Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana 1988CriLJ427 the que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered thereunder. 13. It is seen that in this case cognizance was taken by the criminal Court on September 27, 1983 and the original agreement appears to have been filed in the civil Court on February 9, 1984 - long after cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. It is settled law that once cognizance is taken, two courses are open to the Magistrate, namely, either to discharge the accused if the evidence does not disclose the offence or to acquit of the accused after the full trial. Unless either of the two courses is taken and orders passed, the cognizance duly taken cannot be set at naught. In this case since cognizance was already taken before filing of the document in the civil Court and the original has not been filed before cognizanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
