Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 756 (MP)

Manjla alias Mahendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2006-05-20

A.K.GOHIL

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) IN this petition filed under Section 482, Cr. PC, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 502/2001 on 14-3-2002, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 195, Cr. PC and has also challenged the legality of the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 52/2002 by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha on 4-7-2002, whereby the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that a criminal case was pending in the Court of JMFC Vidisha against the petitioner No. 1. Due to his non-appearance in that criminal case, the warrants of arrest were issued against him. Subsequently, he appeared and he was directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds. Petitioner No. 2 was the surety in the case. The learned Magistrate found that on 9-3-1999, petitioner No. 2 appeared before the Court of ACJM Vidisha and produced the sale deed dated 16-7-1996 of Mohar Singh s/o Bhanwar Singh and impersonate himself as Mohar Singh s/o Bhanwar Singh. The Trial Court rejected the aforesaid document of surety bond and directed Police State Dehat, Distt. Vidisha to register the crime and investigate the matter. Later on, the matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 205,419,467, 468,471 and 120-B, IPC against the petitioners. In the course of trial, petitioner submitted an application and prayed that procedure laid down under Section 195 read with Section 340, Cr. PC is required to be followed in this case. Since the procedure has not been followed, the trial deserves to be dropped. But the Trial Court as well the Revisional Court both rejected the application, against which the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC for quashing the charge-sheet on the ground that the Trial Court has not followed the procedure laid down under Section 195 read with Section 340, Cr. PC, as the petitioner is entitled to get the protection of Section 195 and prayed for quashment of the charge-sheet. ( 3. ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. PC, as the petitioner is entitled to get the protection of Section 195 and prayed for quashment of the charge-sheet. ( 3. ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the offence of forgery in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court is committed, no Court can take cognizance of any such offence except the complaint is filed in writing by the Court concerned, as laid down under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) and also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjil Singh v. Balbir Singh 1996 III AD (SC )217 , AIR1996 SC 1592 , 1996 Crilj2304 , JT1996 (3 )SC 363 , 1996 (2 )SCALE865 , (1996 )3 SCC533 , [1996 ]3 SCR70 and submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision the Bar in taking cognizance under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) gets attracted and Criminal Court is prohibited from taking cognizance unless the complaint in writing is filed as per procedure under Section 340 of the Cr. PC. ( 4. ) IN reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and submitted that both the Courts below have not committed any illegality in dismissing the application as the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the Bar created under Section 195, Cr. PC and this petition being second revision is too not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. ( 5. ) ALTER having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the record as well as considered the subsequent decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998) 2 SCC 493 and as well as Constitutional Bench decision in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah AIR2005 SC 2119 , 2005 Crilj2161 , 118 (2005 )DLT329 (SC ), JT2005 (3 )SC 195 , 2005 (3 )Mhlj530 , 2005 (II )OLR (SC ) 102 , (2005 )4 SCC370 , 2005 (1 )UJ675 (SC ). In nutshell, according to the decision of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Iqbal Singh (supra), after considering the decision in the case of Surjit Singh (supra), the Constitutional Bench has found that law laid down in the case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra), has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. PC is 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 proceedings in any Court, i. e. , during the time when the document was a custodia legis. In this case, the Apex Court has further held as under: "23. In view of the language used in Section 340, Cr. PC, the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195 (1) (b), as the section is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice". This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195 (1) (b ). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. In such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of Clause (b) (ii), as canvassed by learned Counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime rendered remediless, has to be discarded. 25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the Court, where the document has been filed itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large. 26. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the Courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is rarely adopted. It will not be fair and proper to give an interpretation which leads to a situation where a person alleged to have committed an offence of the type enumerated in Clause (b) (ii) is either not placed for trial on account of non-filing of a complaint or if a complaint is filed, the same does not come to its logical end. Judging from such an angle will be in consonance with the principle that an unworkable or impracticable result should be avoided. In statutory interpretation by Francis Bennion (3rd Edn.), Para 313, the principle has been stated in the following manner: The Court seeks to avoid a construction of an enactment that produces an unworkable or impracticable result, since this is unlikely to have been intended by Parliament. In statutory interpretation by Francis Bennion (3rd Edn.), Para 313, the principle has been stated in the following manner: The Court seeks to avoid a construction of an enactment that produces an unworkable or impracticable result, since this is unlikely to have been intended by Parliament. Sometimes, however, there are overriding reasons for applying such a construction, for example, where it appears that Parliament really intended it or the literal meaning is too strong. ( 6. ) IN view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of Apex Case in the case of lqbal Singh (supra), it is clear that the Trial Court has adopted the correct procedure under the law and the Bar created by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. PC is not attracted and the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 195 Cr. PC and the Revisional Court has also rightly rejected the revision. As has been held in the case of Iqbal Singh (supra), if any offence is committed by the petitioners by producing a forged sale deed of other party and has also tried to impersonate himself as Mohar Singh, by rejecting the document and surety the Court has rightly directed the police to register a criminal case under the appropriate provisions of law and to proceed against them in accordance with law and filing of the complaint under Section 195, Cr. PC is not necessary for every case. Therefore, it appears that in this case the Magistrate has adopted the right procedure and under the facts and circumstances of the case it was not necessary for him to file the complaint himself as laid down under Section 195, Cr. PC. ( 7. ) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. PC being the second revision by the same party is also not maintainable as there is no provision under Cr. PC for filing the second revision. There is nothing in the petition to invoke the inherent powers which are extra-ordinary powers in nature, either to give effect to any order under this Court or to prevent abuse of the powers of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below. In fact, no case is made out either on facts or on law to exercise inherent powers in the case. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merits and substance is hereby dismissed. It is directed that the parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 10th July, 2006 for further trial in the matter. Record of the Trial Court be also remitted back immediately so that it may reach to the Trial Court on or before 10th July, 2006.