RAM SUNDER Vs. CHANRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.7. 1982 passed by the Munsif-Magistrate, IV, in case No.2 of 1982 rejecting the application of the accused-applicants for discharging the accused as requirements of section 195 Cr. P.C. were not fulfilled.

(2.) The fact under challenge is that the accused-applicants have got the sale deed in dispute executed in favour of accused Ram Sunder through an imposter lady for which a complaint under section 467/34 I.P.C. was filed. It is alleged that the accused-applicants have filed the said document in the mutation proceeding pending before the Tahsildar, Shahganj. It was challenged before the trial court that any complaint in connection with the genuineness of the document should only be filed by that court itself and not by a private complainant. On behalf of the complainant it was stated that Section 195 Cr. P.C. has no application in the present case and the petition of complaint is not barred. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 22.7.1982 rejected the plea of the accused-applicants and held that section 195 applies only if the offence complained of was committed by a party to the proceedingsT and it must have been committed during judicial proceeding pending in a court and if the offence complained of was committed before commencement of the proceeding, section 195 Cr. P.C. would not operate as a bar.

(3.) The learned counsel has referred the case of Ram Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., wherein it has been held that: ....A plain reading of the section shows that what it actually bars in taking at the instance of a private complainant cognizance of an offence of the nature described in Section 463 I.P.C. or punishable under sections 471, 475 and 476 I.P.C., where such offence is said to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in any proceeding in Court. The section no where provides that its provisions should be attracted only if such offence has been committed after initiation of the judicial proceedings in which the objectionable document had been produced or filed. Referring this decision the learned counsel has submitted that after amendment the word by a party to the proceeding has been omitted. So the present position is that if the alleged offence was committed by any other person then the party to the proceeding, even then complaint of the court would be necessary. There has been no change in the position that if a document is alleged to have been forged out-side the court and produced in court proceeding or given in evidence the complaint is required to be filed by the court itself and not by a private person. He has submitted that the learned Magistrate could not appreciate the said point and passed the order on the basis of a provision which has been repealed by the new Code.