NEKASEY LAL Vs. KEDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Section 482 CrPC Nekasey Lal and others prayed that the order dated 25-10-1980 of the Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, 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. Nekasey Lal and others) be quashed.

(2.) IT would appear that a complaint was filed by Surendra Pal Singh against Nekasey Lal and others under Sections 467, 419 and 420 IPC and the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its 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) CrPC but the Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, allowed revision no. 76 of 1980 by an order dated 25-10-1980 and sent back the case to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri for appearance of the accused there vide his judgment (Annexure II).

(3.) IF other offences are ancillary to the main offence of forgery, cognizance of other offence would also be barred. Section 195(l)(b) (ii) applies as bar to all offences described under Section 463 IPC and Section 463 IPC gives definition of forgery and when that is the position, cognizance of all such offences which are of the nature described In Section 463 IPC 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-See Bashirul Haq's case, 1953 S. C. R. 836. The offences under Sections 406, 467, 420, 419 and all similar offences are ancillary to the offences of forgery as defined under Section 463 IPC. IF charges of forgery fail all other charges would also fail. When that is the position, bar of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) is attracted in this case and the Magistrate could not take cognizance.