Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1174 (MP)

PAIKRAM v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-11-16

M.C.GARG

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri D. K. Paroha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the applicants against framing of charge on 25-9-2006 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat to the following effect : 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the proceedings in this case were initiated on the basis of a complaint filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat at the instance of the Court of Civil Judge, Balaghat vide order dated 31-7-2000. The order regarding filing of the complaint passed by the Civil Judge is as under : 4. It is based upon the aforesaid order, the present complaint is filed by the Court of CJM, Balaghat by which offences have been alleged to have been committed by the applicants under Sections 466, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegation on the basis of the present complaint has been lodged against the applicants pertains to forgery committed in an agreement to sell which was filed in a suit for specific performance vide Ex-P/1 and, another document in which the addition was made of a khasra number and, handing over the possession thereof to the applicants by the respondent vide Ex-D/2. It is submitted that both these documents came into existence before the filing of the suit itself and were not tampered with by the applicants during the pendency of proceedings before the Civil Court and, therefore, the Civil Court was not entitled to file a complaint in view of Section 195(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under : "of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court." 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that since the basis of filing of the complaint is contrary to law, the cognizance thereof or framing of charges in the case is misconceived, unfounded and is illegal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that since the basis of filing of the complaint is contrary to law, the cognizance thereof or framing of charges in the case is misconceived, unfounded and is illegal. He has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah reported in AIR 2005 SC 2119 . The relevant is paragraph 25, which reads as under : "25. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code 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." 7. In this case also the alleged forgery qua the two documents produced in the Court was done prior to the filing of those documents in the Court and it is not the case of tampering with the evidence or committing forgery qua the documents which were custodia legis i.e., which were in possession of the Court concerned. Hence, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) squarely applies to this case, therefore, the charges framed against the applicants in this case by the Court of Additional Chief Magistrate, Balaghat dated 25-9-2006 in Criminal Case No. 809/2006 are quashed and the bail bonds of the applicants are discharged.