K VENGADACHALAM Vs. K C PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) By the impugned order, the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS quashed the prosecution of the respondents, which was launched under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472 and 477-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code (for short "ipc") on the ground that the complaint was barred under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "crpc"). Undisputedly, the forgery is said to have been committed before the document was filed. Earlier, there was diverse opinion of this Court as to whether protection of section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Crpc was available in relation to forgery committed prior to the filing of document or after its filing. A Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi marwah has categorically laid down in para 33 of the judgment that protection engrafted under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Crpc would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it had been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i. e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. This being the position, in our view, the High Court was not justified in quashing prosecution of the respondents on the ground that provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Crpc were applicable.