Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 697 (MP)

Prakash Asnani v. Tikamdas

2001-09-24

S.P.KHARE

body2001
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a second appeal under Section 100, CPC. Arguments on the question of admission heard. ( 2. ) TIKAMCHAND son of Laxmibai obtained eviction decree in Civil Suit No, 6-A of 19% against Kishanchand and in execution proceedings of that decree applicant Prakash Asnani submitted an application under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, expressing his intention to resist the execution of the decree on the ground that Laxmibai, the owner of the house, has let out the suit shop to him as per rent-note dated 22-4-1999 and since then he is in possession of the shop. Laxmibai denied the execution of this rent-note. After an inquiry the executing Court has held by order dated 7-3-2001 that this rent-note is not genuine and Laxmibai has not let out the shop to the applicant and it is still in possession of Kishanchand. That order has been upheld in first appeal under Section 96, CPC. According to Order 21 Rule 103, CPC an order made after adjudication under Order 21 Rule 98, CPC has been given the force of a "decree" and has been subjected to the same conditions as an appeal as if it were a decree. The Appellate Court has also directed prosecution of appellant Prakash Asnani by the Executing Court after following the procedure for filing complaint under Section 195, Cr. PC. This is now the second appeal by appellant Prakash Asnani. ( 3. ) DURING the course of the hearing of this appeal on the question of admission, the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments relating to that part of the order by which the First Appellate Court has directed prosecution of the appellant and has not challenged the remaining part relating to the rejection of the objection of the appellant to the execution of the decree. ( 4. ) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that Section 195, Cr. PC is not attracted in the present case as the forgery of the rent-note is said to have been committed before it was produced in the Court. It is pointed out that the forgery is not said to have been committed when the document was custodia-legis and, therefore, there is no need of filing the complaint by the Court under Section 195, Cr. PC and non-applicant Tikamdas or Laxmibai if they so desire may launch prosecution against the appellant. It is pointed out that the forgery is not said to have been committed when the document was custodia-legis and, therefore, there is no need of filing the complaint by the Court under Section 195, Cr. PC and non-applicant Tikamdas or Laxmibai if they so desire may launch prosecution against the appellant. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Patel Laljibhai Vs. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1971 SC 1935 ), Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1974 SC 299 ), Raghunath Vs. State of U. P. (AIR 1973 SC1100) and of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 Punjab and Haryana 19 ). To the list of citations the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493 = AIR 1998 SC 1121 , may be added in which it has again been clarified that it is difficult to interpret Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. PC as containing a bar against initiation of prosecution proceedings merely because the document concerned was produced in a Court albeit the act of forgery was perpetrated prior to its production in Court. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far out-side 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. It must, therefore, be held 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. ( 5. ) IN view of the legal position discussed above a complaint by the Court under Section 195, Cr PC is not a sine-qua-non to enable a Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence of forgery of the rent-note which is said to have been committed in the present case before its production in the Court. But there is no legal bar for the Court to direct prosecution against a person who is found to have committed forgery in respect of such a document. It is said that anyone can set the criminal law in motion against any person who has committed a crime. But there is no legal bar for the Court to direct prosecution against a person who is found to have committed forgery in respect of such a document. It is said that anyone can set the criminal law in motion against any person who has committed a crime. The doctrine of locus-standi has a very limited application in the field of criminal law, for example, the cases covered by Sections 198 and 199 of the Code. The general rule is that anyone can put the criminal law into motion, as a complainant, except where the statute which creates the offence indicates to the contrary expressly or impliedly. Therefore, a Court which finds the commission of the offence of forgery or any other offence is competent to file a complaint before a Magistrate or direct investigation by the police. The powers of a Court are not circumscribed in ordering prosecution of anyone in the interest of justice. Therefore, a Court is competent to direct filing of a complaint or report even in those cases which are not covered by Section 195, Cr. PC. In the cases covered by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence without the complaint of the Court. But the Court can order prosecution even in cases dehors Section 195 of the Code. ( 6. ) IN the present case the First Appellate Court has directed prosecution of the appellant in the interest of justice and the discretion exercised by it does not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed.