Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 903 (GAU)

Sushanta Sarkar v. State of Nagaland

2012-07-30

I.A.ANSARI

body2012
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. I have heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party. With the help of this revision, the accused-petitioner has put to challenge the order, dated 17.03.2004, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, in MAC Case No. 51/ 2002, whereby the learned Tribunal informed the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, that the accused-petitioner had committed an offence under Section 193 IPC and the case, as against the accused-petitioner, may be accordingly dealt with and the order, dated 04.06.2004, passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, whereby the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, has taken cognizance of offence under Section 193 IPC and has directed issuance of process accordingly against the accused-petitioner. 2. The material facts, giving rise to the present revision, may, in brief, be set out as under (i) An application, under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short, the 'MV Act'), seeking compensation, was made, in the name of Smt. Meera Dey, in the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, for having suffered fracture of the left radius of the upper limb, in an accident, which took place on 03.03.2002, at Dimapur, Nagaland, involving a vehicle bearing registration No. NL 01-3323. This claim application gave rise to MAC Case No. 51/2002. (ii) When the claim application was pending for adjudication, the insurer' of the said vehicle appointed the present petitioner as investigator and, in course of time, the investigator (i.e., the present petitioner) alleged that the claim application, made in the case at hand, was a fabricated one inasmuch as he had examined the claimant, who had, according to the present petitioner, given statement to the effect that she (claimant) had not met with any motor vehicular accident; rather, the injury, sustained by her, was a result of her fall, on 29.06.2001, in her bathroom, and that her claim application may be dismissed accordingly. This apart, the claimant had also stated that her elder sister, Smt. Rita Roy @ Rekha, had planned to illegally take out compensation from the 'insurer' by obtaining police report as well as doctor's report without knowledge of the claimant and that the claimant was not in need of any compensation from the 'insurer'. This apart, the claimant had also stated that her elder sister, Smt. Rita Roy @ Rekha, had planned to illegally take out compensation from the 'insurer' by obtaining police report as well as doctor's report without knowledge of the claimant and that the claimant was not in need of any compensation from the 'insurer'. The statement, so made, and the report, which the present petitioner had submitted, as Investigator, to the 'insurer', were filed in MAC Case No. 51/2002 aforementioned. (iii) However, upon filing of the said documents in the MAC Case, mentioned hereinbefore, the claimant, namely, Smt. Meera Dey, alleged that the said documents did not bear her handwriting and signatures. The learned Tribunal, then, sent the said documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam, for hand writing expert's opinion. (iv) The opinion, given by the expert, was to the effect that two of the questioned documents did not tally with the handwriting and signatures on the admitted documents in the documents. The learned Tribunal, then, issued summon to the present petitioner in order to enable him to have his say in the matter. When, according to the learned Tribunal, the present petitioner did not turn up, the learned Tribunal forwarded the matter, by order, dated 17.03.2004, to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, for doing the needful, in terms of the provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C., on the ground that the petitioner herein had filed forged and fabricated documents and he was, therefore, liable for prosecution under Section 193 IPC. (v) On receiving a copy of the order, dated 17.03.2004, aforementioned, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) registered CR Case No. 07/ 2004 and, having taken cognizance of offence under Section 193 IPC, directed issuance of summon accordingly to the accused-petitioner, who appeared on 21.07.22004 and was allowed to go on bail. 3. Having obtained bail, as mentioned hereinbefore, the accused-petitioner has, now, put to challenge the sustainability of the order, dated 17.03.2004, of the learned Tribunal and also the order, dated 04.06.2004, passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), taking cognizance of offence, under Section 193 IPC, and directing issuance of process against the accused-petitioner. 4. 3. Having obtained bail, as mentioned hereinbefore, the accused-petitioner has, now, put to challenge the sustainability of the order, dated 17.03.2004, of the learned Tribunal and also the order, dated 04.06.2004, passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), taking cognizance of offence, under Section 193 IPC, and directing issuance of process against the accused-petitioner. 4. The basis for challenge to the maintainability of the order, taking cognizance of offence against the present petitioner, rests on Section 195 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as it has been contended, on behalf of the accused-petitioner, that no court, in the light of the provisions of Section 195 IPC, shall take cognizance of offence under Section 193 Cr.P.C., when such an offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or of any offence under Section 463, 471, 475 and 476, 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 except on complaint, in writing, of the public servant concerned, or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. 5. In the present case, since there is no separate complaint, in writing, made by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, it is submitted that taking of cognizance of offence, under Section 193 IPC, stands barred in law. 6. While dealing with the present revision, it is necessary to note that it is Section 191 IPC, which describes as to when a person can be said to have given false evidence. Section 191 IPC reads as under: 191. Giving false evidence. - Whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement, which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Explanation 1. - A statement is within the meaning of this Section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. Explanation 2. Explanation 1. - A statement is within the meaning of this Section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. Explanation 2. - A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this Section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know. 7. From a careful reading of what Section 191 IPC embodies, it becomes clear that if a person, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement, which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, the person is said to give false evidence. 8. Similarly, Section 192 IPC relates to fabrication of false evidence and it (Section 192 IPC) reads as under: 192. Fabrication of false evidence. -Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record, or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such `proceeding, is said 'to fabricate false evidence'. 9. From a careful reading of Section 192 IPC, what transpires is that whoever forges a document, containing false statement or false entry, intending that such false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person, who, in such proceeding, is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion in such proceeding, he is said to fabricate false evidence. 10. 10. Section 193 IPC provides for punishment for both, giving of false evidence, as described in Section 191 IPC, and fabrication of false evidence, as described in Section 192 IPC. 11. In the cast at hand, since the petitioner had allegedly made a false statement indicating that the learned Tribunal shall form an opinion that the claim application had not been made by the person, whose name had appeared as the claimant, and that this attempt, which the accused-petitioner had allegedly made, was false and was to become the basis for entertaining an erroneous opinion by the learned Tribunal, he can be well described to have fabricated false evidence. Whether the petitioner has really made a false statement or not is a question of fact, which can be decided at the trial and not in this quashing proceeding, when the allegations, which have been made against the petitioner do make out a prima facie case under Section 193 IPC. 12. Coupled with the above, the case at hand, as the materials on record reveal, really relates to alleged commission of forgery of a document, which had been filed in the MAC Case No. 51/2002. Whether these documents are really forged or not cannot be determined, at this stage, in this quashing proceeding. But, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the learned Tribunal could not have held that there was no forgery committed in respect of the writing and/or signatures of the claimant. 13. In the circumstances mentioned above, when the documents were allegedly forged and, then, filed in MAC Case No. 51/2002, the offence, which was allegedly committed by the present petitioner, could have been taken cognizance of without the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. having come into play and no specific complaint, in writing, by a public servant was necessary in the present case nor was any inquiry, in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C., was required Reference, in this regard, may be made to the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 3 70. 14. Meenakshi Marwah, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 3 70. 14. In the case at hand, the order, dated 17.03.2004, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, contains sufficient allegations to constitute a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. inasmuch as a complaint is nothing but, as defined in Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., allegation, made orally or in writing, to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code of Criminal Procedure, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. When a complaint was, thus, laid before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, the complaint having been made by the learned Tribunal, there is no impediment, on the part of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, to take cognizance of offences under Section 193 and/or Section 465 and/or Section 471 IPC. 15. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case warranting interference either with the order, dated 17.03.2004, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, or with the act of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, taking cognizance of offence under Section 193 IPC against the present petitioner. 16. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this revision fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. Send back the LCR.