Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 680 (MP)

Ramnaresh Singh v. Mahila Sonawati

2007-07-05

B.M.GUPTA

body2007
ORDER :- This revision has been preferred impugning the order dated 2nd August, 2004 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in criminal revision No. 45/03 by which the learned Judge has set aside an order dated 29th January, 2003 passed by the JMFC, Ambah in criminal case No. 72/02, whereby the learned Magistrate had rejected the private complaint filed by the respondent on the ground that the complaint has not been filed by a Court and thus not maintainable as provided by Section 195(1) of the Cr. P. C. 2. During the course of arguments, following facts have been admitted by both the parties :- A. That, the disputed Will dated 5th April, 1994 registered on 24th November, 1994 was filed by the petitioners in revenue case No. 33/93-94xA/6 (Rajesh and others v. Kumher Singh) on 12th January, 1995. This revenue case was also filed on 12-1-1995 i.e. much after the execution and registration of the impugned Will. Thereafter, one private complaint dated 25th August, 1995 was filed by the respondent against the petitioners in the Court of JMFC, Ambah on the allegation that the Will is false and fabricated. B. That, vide order dated 29th January, 2003, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint observing that the complaint has not been filed by any public servant or the Court concerned as provided under Section 195(1)(B)(2) of the Cr. P. C. C. That, feeling aggrieved with this order, revision was preferred by the respondent which has been disposed of vide impugned order dated 2th August, 2004. By this order, the order passed by the learned Magistrate has been set aside and the case has been remanded for rehearing and disposal of the case. Feeling aggrieved with this order, this revision has been preferred by the petitioners. 3. Shri Dwivedi, while drawing attention at the judgment of the Apex Court in Gopalakrishna Menon and another v. D. Raja Reddy and another, 1983 Car 421 (SC) : (1983 Cri LJ 1599) has submitted that unless the revenue Court does not file a complaint, complaint filed by the petitioner is barred under Section 195(1)(b)(2) of Cr. P. C. 4. Per contra Shri Shrivastava has submitted that unless a forgery is committed during the pendency of a case in the Court itself, requirement of the aforementioned provision of Section 195 will not be a bar for lodging a complaint by a private person. P. C. 4. Per contra Shri Shrivastava has submitted that unless a forgery is committed during the pendency of a case in the Court itself, requirement of the aforementioned provision of Section 195 will not be a bar for lodging a complaint by a private person. In support, he has also drawn attention at observation of the Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another (2005) 4 SCC 370 : (2005 Cri LJ 2161). 5. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh (supra) that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) could be attracted only when the offence enumerated in this provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in proceedings in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was custodia legis. If such offence is committed prior to its production or giving in evidence in Court, no complaint by Court could be necessary and a private complaint could be maintainable. In view of the admitted facts in para 2-A hereinabove, it clearly appears that the execution and the registration of the impugned Will was of date 5-4-1994 and 24-11-1994 respectively. While this Will was filed on 12th January, 1995 in the forementioned revenue case. The case was also filed on the same date. In view of this, as observed by the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh (2005 Cri LJ 2161) (supra) case the impugned order of the learned Judge having similar observation does not appear erroneous. 6. The judgment of the Apex Court in Gopal Krishnan Menon (1983 Cri LJ 1599) (supra) is on a different point. In this case the Apex Court has observed that Section (sic) IPC defines the offence of forgery and Section 467 of IPC (sic) particular category. In view of this although Section 467 of IPC does not find place in Section 195, Cr. P. C. yet, as 463 is appearing in the provision, Section 467 is also covered by the provision of Section 195, Cr. P. C. Thus, the judgment being on a different point the contention of Shri Dwivedi in this case does not deserve to be sustained. 7. Consequently the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.