NEKASEY LAL Vs. KEDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Nekasey Lal and others prayed that the order dated 25-10- 1980 of the Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpun be set aside and Criminal proceedings in Criminal complaint No. 302 of 1979 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, (Surendra Pal Singh v. Naksey Lal and others) be quashed. It would appear that a complaint was filed by Surendra Pal Singh against Naksey Lal and others under Sections 467, 419 and 420 I. P. C. and the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 3-6-1980 (Annexure 1) upheld the plea of the applicants that the complaint was barred by Section 195 (b) (ii) and (iii) Cr. P. C. but the Vlth Additional and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, allow ed revision No 76 of 1980 by an order dated 25-10-1980 and sent back the case to the Court of Chief Judi cial Magistrate, Mainpuri for appear ance of the accused there, vide his judgment (Annexure II.) It is submitted that as the very sale deed, to which the aforesaid complaint relates, which is said to have been forged and to have been got falsely prepared was produced in the mutation proceedings in the Court of Tahsildar, Bhongaon on 24-6-1977, a private complaint would not lie and is barred under the afore said provisions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has repelled such argument mainly on the grounds that as the alleged impersonation for getting the sale deed executed by a false person and forging of the document was not committed by the respondents in their capacity as party to the proceedings in mutation Court and the act was done much before that, the bar of Section 195 (ii) would not apply. The learned Sessions Judge in support of his view relied upon the case of Raghunath and others v. State of U. P. and others S. C. C. R. 1973 p. 270. In that case relying upon the case of Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat, it was observed that the view taken in the case of Kushal Pal Singh has been approved and according to that decision the words "to have been committed by a party to any pro ceeding in any Court in Section 195 (i) (c) mean that the offence should be alleged to have been committed by the party to the proceedings in his character as such party, that is, after having become a party to the proceeding. " Unfortunately the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, overlooked one important factor. Earlier Supreme Court rulings are based upon the language and expression used in Section 195 Cr. P. C. before the amendment introduced in the new Cr. P. C. Now the expression in Section 195 (b) (ii) is when such offence is alleged to have been com mitted in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. The change in the language and expression is important and goes to the root of the matter. Earlier the expression used was 'offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceedings in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceedings. ' Now the words 'by a party to any pro ceeding in any Court' have been omitted. The ingredient, now is the production of the document or giving in evidence of the document in a proceeding in any Court and not beyond that. The entire case law up to date has been considered in Criminal Revision No. 1367 of 1980, Ram Pal Singh v. State of V. P. and others, a Division Bench the decision of this Court, decided on 23-10-1981. Revenue Court is also a Court as per Section 195 (3 ). In the case of Ram Pal Singh (supra) also the document in respect of which commission of an offence, described under Section 463 I. P. C. was alleged was filed before the Court of Tahsildar in certain mutation pro ceedings and it was held that in view of the same the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of such an offence at the instance of a private party. The principles of law laid down in the aforesaid Division Bench case are all force in this case. If other offences are ancillary to the main offence of forgery, cogniz ance of other offence would also be barred. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) applies to all offences described under Section 463 I. P. C. and Sec tion 463 I. P. C. gives definition of forgery and when that is the position, Cognizance of all such offences which are of the nature described in Section 463 I. P. C. would be barred. This view was taken in the case of Smt. Dano v. Shanker Lal 1973 AWR 532, as well as in the case of Ram Pal Singh (supra ). The earlier Supreme Court view is also the same in Bashirul Haq's case 1953 S. C. R, 836. The offences under Ss. 406, 467, 420, 419 and all similar offences are ancilla ry to the offences of forgery as defined under Section 463 I. P. C. If charges of forgery fail all other charges would also fall. When that is the position, bar of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) is attracted in this case and the Magis trate could not take cognizance. In the result, the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is allowed and the judgment and order dated 25-10-1980 of the Vtth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, (Annexure 1 to the petition) directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the complaint case is quashed and the order of the Chief Judicial Magis trate dated 30 6-19 is restored and the criminal proceedings in criminal complaints No. 302 of 1979 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magis trate Mainpuri is quashed. .