AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for quashing the FIR registered by the High grounds Police, Bangalore in Crime No. 9/13 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 471 of IPC on the basis of the report lodged by the respondent No. 2. Quashing of the FIR is sought on the ground that since the documents which are alleged to have been forged and fabricated are the subject matter of the proceedings before the Family Court and before the jurisdictional Magistrate in a proceeding initiated u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, respondent No. 1-police had no jurisdiction to register a crime case on the basis of a report since such course is barred u/s 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioner that in respect of the alleged offence in relation to the documents which are subject matter of the proceedings before a judicial forum, a complaint can be filed only by that Court and not by any other individual.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the light of the law laid down in the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, In this decision, the Apex Court has laid down that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. 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. In the case on hand, respondent No. 2 in his report to the jurisdictional police has alleged that the petitioner herein has drawn a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from her bank account on the basis of three cheques purported to have been drawn in his favour by forging his signature. The alleged act of forgery was done prior to production of evidence before the judicial forums where the proceedings are stated to have been pending between the parties. It is the submission of the respondent No. 2 that the original cheques were not produced before the Court but only xerox copies thereof have been produced. May be the 2nd respondent herein has taken the defence in those proceedings that signatures on the cheques are forged by the petitioner herein for the purpose of drawing money from her bank account. However, that by itself would not oust the authority of the 2nd respondent to file a report before the jurisdictional police nor it ousts the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent-police from registering the case and investigating the matter. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, I do not see any substance in this petition Accordingly, it is rejected.