Jaju and Co. vs Shanta Devi Dhoot, rep. by her Power of Attorney, Om Prokash Dhoot

Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.—This Contempt Case is filed to prosecute the respondent for contempt of the Court for abusing process of the Court by filing false and frivolous complaints based on stolen and forged cheques, knowing fully well that such cheques are not genuine and they have been stolen and signatures have been forged therein and for filing false affidavit before the Court, suppressing the material facts and knowing fully well that the contents of the affidavit are false, frivolous and fabricated.

The facts of the case are that a criminal complaint was filed on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that there is no debt. The complainant has to file civil suit for recovery of capital amount and goodwill amount. Against that order Revision Petitions Nos. 80/95 & 81/95 were filed before the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and they were also dismissed confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. Assailing the order of the learned Sessions Judge, second Revision Petition was filed before this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. This Court allowed Crl.P. No. 3764/95, holding-

"Therefore, in the present case, dismissal of the complaint of the petitioner is illegal and is liable to be quashed. It is to be noticed that at the time 30 of taking cognizance of an offence the Court is not expected to go into the defence and decide the case as if the accused has put his defence before the Court for consideration. Both the Courts erred in going into such an area and dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the orders of both the Courts are quashed. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is directed to consider the case for taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the complainant according to law. The Criminal petition is therefore allowed."

The present petitioners are accused in that complaint. Thereafter wards the petitioners have filed a petition of being mentioned in the above Crl. Petition, which was dismissed by this Court on 6-3-97. Again they have filed a review petition to review the order of this Court. This was dismissed on 8-8-97. In the meanwhile the petitioners, who are respondents in the criminal complaint, filed a petition to quash the proceedings in Crl.P.No. 1160/97, which was also dismissed by this Court on 30-6-97. Thereafterwards the present petition is filed to prosecute the respondent for contempt of Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondent herein filed false affidavit and forged documents and the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Sessions Judge both have dismissed the complaint as well as the revision filed. Further the proceedings in Crl.P. No. 3764/95 filed to quash the orders of the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge, u/s 482 Cr.P.C, basing on the same documents, was allowed and the matter was remanded back. Thus, the respondent herein has abused the process of this Court and polluted the scheme of justice, which amounts to criminal contempt.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners has taken us through the release deed, alleged affidavits, partnership deed, etc. The question whether the said affidavits by the respondent herein, are forged ones or not, has to be decided by the learned Magistrate, before whom the Criminal Case is pending, after this Court allowed the Crl.P.No. 3764/95. Thus, the question is pending before the learned Magistrate in the criminal case. We have perused the orders of the learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge. In both the orders it was found that there was no true debt existing. Except that, there is no finding that the documents or the cheques are forged ones. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not tenable. It is to be noticed that when any forged document is filed before a Court in a proceedings, the said Court has to decide whether the same is forged document or not and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the said document is false and forged document, it has to lay a complaint u/s 340 Cr.P.C. Otherwise, the said complaint is not at all maintainable u/s 185 Cr.P.C. In the present case, neither the Magistrate Court nor the Court of Sessions, while passing the order, has given any finding that the said documents are forged or false, nor given any direction for prosecution. Now the matter is before the learned Magistrate. The Magistrate has to decide whether the allegations of forgery are true or not. The petitioners and the respondent has to lead evidence in the Court and the matter has to be decided. Until that is decided, it cannot be held that the alleged documents, cheques, affidavits, alleged to have been forged by the respondent, are really forged and on that basis contempt proceedings cannot be taken.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments in Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai and Others, ; Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, ; Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and Others, ; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, ; and The Hindusthan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bishwanath Prasad and Another, . There is no dispute about the propositions laid down in the above cases, about the abuse of the process of the Court by polluting the scheme of justice. But the facts of those cases are quite different.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the proposition that no second revision lies of a judgment of the Court. There is no dispute about that proposition. Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. bars the second revision. Whether a second revision is maintainable or not is not in dispute before us in this contempt case, as the Criminal Petition was already disposed of and it has become final.

We do not see any merit in the contempt case. The contempt petition is therefore, dismissed.