MOONLIGHT AGENCY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of Cr.M.P.Nos.20/2017, 33/2017 and 27/2017.

(2.) Complainant Bhagwan Das filed three complaints against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in which, in all three, the petitioner filed bank counterfoil bearing signature of the complainant. In one criminal case bearing Criminal Complaint Case No.632/2009, the petitioner has been acquitted by the jurisdictional criminal court on the ground that the complainant has failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt whereas, other two complaints are pending consideration before the jurisdictional criminal court and in which the petitioner has produced similar counterfoil in defence alleging that it bears the signature of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed application under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate for registering first information report against the petitioner for offence under Sections 193, 196, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC in which the learned Magistrate directed for investigation and thereafter, FIR has been registered for aforesaid offences against the petitioner and thereafter, charges have been framed. Questioning the registration of offence and framing of charges, these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner stating inter alia that the said registration of offence is barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC, therefore, registration of offence and subsequent proceeding of framing charge etc., are without jurisdiction and without authority of law. The orders passed by the revisional court affirming the orders of the trial Court deserve to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the main offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 193 and 196 of the IPC i.e. giving false evidence and for using evidence known to be false that is said to have been committed while filing the documents before the court. In one case, the petitioner has already been acquitted and two other cases are pending consideration before the court. Therefore, bar is squarely attracted and unless the complaint has been preferred by the said court in which such forged/fabricated documents are produced or by any other Court to which such court is subordinate to, the prosecution of the petitioner is bad in law, as Section 195 of the CrPC is mandatory in nature.