ASHOK GULABRAO BONDRE vs. VILAS MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH

1 REPORTABLE

ASHOK GULABRAO BONDRE                   …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VILAS MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS  …RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T  B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. The appeal arises on a very narrow canvass. 2. The   appellant   had   filed   a   complaint   against   the   respondents alleging that the respondents had committed the offence punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 470 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).  3. The main allegation made by the appellant is that respondent No.2   ­   Ramprasad   Pancheshwar   had   prepared   false   and   forged documents, namely, personal recognizance bond and surety bond in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2023.04.17 17:31:56 IST Reason: Criminal   Case   No.   19   of   2003   and   the   rest   of   the   respondents conspired and actively helped respondent No.2 for forging the said 2 documents. 4. It is the case of the appellant that those documents had been eventually filed on record in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2003 pending against   the   appellant   before   the   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class, Ramtek (hereinafter referred to as the “JMFC”). th 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 6 November 2004 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved thereby, the revision petition came to be filed. th 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide order dated 14 March 2005 has held that such a complaint could not have been filed except in writing of the Court concerned or some other Court, that too a subordinate one. 7. Learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   however,   found   that   the allegations made by the revision petitioners were serious in nature, and therefore, directed that if any application is filed by the appellant under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”),   the   learned   JMFC   would   make   a   suitable   preliminary enquiry   and   thereafter,   record   his   finding   to   that   effect   as contemplated under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 8. The   said   order   passed   by   the   Revisional   Court   came   to   be challenged by the appellant before the High Court in an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.  The same came to be rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 9. We have heard Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing for 3 the   appellant   and   Mr.   Rahul   Chitnis   and   Mr.   Aaditya   Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. Mr. Sachin Patil submits that the alleged forgery had not been committed during the pendency of the proceedings. It is submitted that it is the contention of the appellant that the respondents had forged   the   documents   earlier   and   used   them   in   the   proceedings initiated against the appellant. It is, therefore, submitted that the bar of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. would not be applicable. 11. Mr. Sachin Patil has relied on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of  Iqbal Singh Marwa and Another 1 v. Meenakshi Marwah and Another .   12. Mr. Sachin Patil further submits that though the judgment of the Constitution Bench was cited before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, it did not consider the same in correct perspective. 13. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, on the contrary, submits that the appellant has already accepted the order passed by the Revisional Court and filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate.  He further submits that, on account of the interim relief granted   in   the   present   appeal,   the   said   application   could   not   be proceeded   further.   He   submits   that   as   such,   the   question   that   is involved in the present matter is purely an academic question in which the Court should not go. 14. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, supports the submission made by 1 (2005) 4 SCC 370 4 Mr. Rahul Chitnis. 15. The   narrow   question   that   requires   to   be   considered   is   as   to whether   the   embargo   under   Section   195   of   the   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 in evidence.  16. This Court, in the case of   Surjit Singh and Others v. Balbir 2 , had taken a view thus: Singh “ 10.  It would thus be clear that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the foundation of forgery, if produced before the court or given in evidence, the bar of   taking   cognizance   under   Section   195(1)(b)(ii)   gets attracted   and   the   criminal   court   is   prohibited   from taking   cognizance   of   offence   unless   a   complaint   in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed under Section 340 of the Code by or on behalf of the Court. The   object   thereby   is   to   preserve   purity   of   the administration   of   justice   and   to   allow   the   parties   to adduce evidence in proof of certain documents without being   compelled   or   intimidated   to   proceed   with   the judicial   process.   The   bar   of   Section   195   is   to   take cognizance of the offence covered thereunder." 17. Subsequently, this Court, in the case of   Sachida Nand Singh 3 , took the view thus: and Another v. State of Bihar and Another “ 11.  The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence   affecting   administration   of   justice   has   been committed in respect of a document produced in court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed 2 (1996) 3 SCC 533 3 (1998) 2 SCC 493 5 during the time when the document was in custodia legis.   It would be a strained thinking that any offence 12. involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in   the   Court,   could   also   be   treated   as   one   affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the court records. * 23.  The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained   in  Section   195(1)(b)(ii)  of   the   Code   is   not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed   before   the   document   was   produced   in   a court." 18. Finding   the   two   conflicting   views   taken   with   regard   to   the interpretation of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., the question was referred to the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of   Iqbal Singh Marwa  (supra). It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 7 of the said judgment, which is as under: “ 7.  On a plain reading clause (b)(ii) of sub­section (1) of Section 195 is capable of two interpretations. One possible   interpretation   is   that   when   an   offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 IPC is alleged to have been   committed   in   respect   of   a   document   which   is subsequently   produced   or   given   in   evidence   in   a proceeding   in   any   Court,   a   complaint   by   the   Court would be necessary. The other possible interpretation is that when a document has been produced or given in 6 evidence in a proceeding in any Court and thereafter an offence described as aforesaid is committed in respect thereof, a complaint by the Court would be necessary. On this interpretation if the offence as described in the Section is committed prior to production or giving in evidence of  the document in  Court,  no complaint  by Court   would   be   necessary   and   a   private   complaint would   be   maintainable.   The   question   which   requires consideration is which of the two interpretations should be accepted having regard to the scheme of the Act and object sought to be achieved.” 19. After observing the aforesaid and considering the entire scheme under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., so also under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., this Court observed thus: “ In view of the discussion made above, we are of the 33. opinion   that   Sachida   Nand   Singh   has   been   correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section   195(1)(b)(ii)   Cr.P.C.   would   be   attracted   only when   the   offences   enumerated   in   the   said   provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. 34. In the present case, the will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody's case that any offence   as   enumerated   in  Section   195(1)(b)(ii)  was committed in respect to the said will after it had been produced   or   filed   in   the   Court   of   District   Judge. Therefore,   the   bar   created   by  Section   195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.   would   not   come   into   play   and   there   is   no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.” 7 20. It could thus clearly be seen that this Court, on unequal terms, has held that the view taken in the case of   Sachida Nand Singh (supra) that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offence enumerated in the said provision was committed in respect of a document after it has been produced or filed in evidence during proceedings before any Court, i.e. during the time when the document is  custodia legis . The Court has clearly held that, insofar as the   Will   which   is   alleged   to   have   been   fabricated   before   it   was produced in the Court, the embargo created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. would not come into play. 21. It has been held that in such a case, the Court will be entitled to take cognizance of the offence only on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant. 22. In that view of the matter, we find that the view taken by the Revisional Court as well as the High Court is not sustainable. 23. The   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Revisional Court as well as the High Court are quashed and set aside. 24. The   matter   is   remitted   back   forthwith   to   the   learned   JMFC, Ramtek for   considering   the   complaint  of  the   appellant  on   its own merits. 25. Taking into consideration that the litigation is pending for almost a decade, we request the learned JMFC to decide the complaint of the appellant   on   merits   as   expeditiously   as   possible   and   in   any   case 8 within a period of one year from today. 26. We further make it clear that we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits and nothing observed herein should be construed to have bearing on the merits of the matter. 27. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 28. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.      ….........................J.    [B.R. GAVAI]    ...........................J.    [SANJAY KAROL] NEW DELHI; APRIL 12, 2023. 9 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1931/2011 ASHOK GULABRAO BONDRE Appellant(s) VERSUS VILAS MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 12-04-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL For Appellant(s) Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv. Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Gajanan N Tirthkar, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Yougant Dhillon, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. 2. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (DEEPAK SINGH) (ANJU KAPOOR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]