Balbir Singh vs Surjit Singh

M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

In a Civil Suit between the parties, an agreement was introduced in evidence by the respondents; firstly it was the photostat copy thereof and later its original.

In the meantime, the petitioner lodged a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate complaining that the document introduced in the Civil Court was a forged document. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code. When the accused were summoned, a halfhearted objection was raised that the original had not been produced before the Civil Court but in the meantime the original document found its way on the file of the Civil Court. The second objection taken was that it would be the Civil Court who would opine whether the document was forged or not; in the event of it being forged it was that Court which could, in exercise of powers under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lodge a complaint in a Criminal Court. The learned Magistrate upheld the objection, dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused.

The petitioner moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but he was relegated to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge also took the same view on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopalkrishna Menon and another v. D. Raja Reddy and another, 1983(2) RCR(Crl.) 354 (SC) : AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1053 , and this is how the petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The aforereferred to case of the Supreme Court seemingly rubbed against the ratio of a Division Bench of the Court in Karnail Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, 1983(1) Recent CR 38 : 1983 Criminal Law Journal 713 . I had referred the matter to a Full Bench for settlement of the law in that regard. Its decision has come on 7th May, 1986 in Criminal Revision No. 5095M of 1985. (1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 481) In accordance there with, the view of both the Courts is unsustainable. It has been held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted only in the case of documents in relation to which forgery is committed in Court and not to prefabricated documents which are introduced in Courts of law. In the instant case, the forged document allegedly had been forged as such outside the Court and had been introduced in evidence in the civil Suit. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would thus be not a bar for the entertainment of the instant complaint. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and orders of both the Courts below are set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the learned Magistrate on 25th August, 1986.