GOPALAKRISHNA MENON Vs. D RAJA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising in this appeal by, special leave is whether, in the absence of necessary complaint by the Civil Court where a money receipt alleged to have been forged was produced, prosecution for offences punishable under Ss. 467, and 471 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code would be maintainable. The accused arc the appellants and they challenge the dismissal of their application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

(2.) The appellants are father and son respectively. They took a printing press from the 1st respondent in terms of an agreement, dated December 3, 1980, with a view to carrying on the printing business. The agreement stipulated that the appellants would have to deposit Rupees 20,000/- with the 1st respondent and pay Rs. 500/- p. m. as also 50% of the net profits to 1st respondent. Dispute arose between the parties over the compliance of the terms of the agreement whereupon the 1st respondent filed against the appellants O. S. No. 609/81 for mandatory injunction and O. S. No. 1140/81 for recovery of damages. Appellants filed O. S. No. 358/81 for refund of Rs. 20,000/- claimed to have been deposited with 1st respondent and for recovery of Rs. 8,638/- on the footing that the same had been paid to 1st respondent by cheques and in cash. Along with their plaint appellants produced the original contract as also the money receipt for Rs. 20,000/- in support of the claim in the suit. After production of the money receipt in Court, 1st respondent filed a complaint against the appellants alleging forgery of his signature on the money receipt and thereby commission of offences punishable under Ss. 467 and 471, I. P. C. On receiving summonses from the Court, the appellants objected to maintainability of the criminal action and later moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for quashing the said proceedings by contending that in the absence of complaint from the Court the prosecution was barred in view of S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code. In support of this contention reliance was placed on S. 340 of the Code. The High Court referred to the provisions of Ss. 463, 465, 467, 471 and 474 of the Penal Code and observed :

(3.) There is no dispute that the alleged forged document was produced in the suit brought by the appellants. Section 340 of the Code provides :