VISHWAMBHAR GHANSHYAM BAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) To state in brief the present petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of J. M. F. C. Nanded against the Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 for the offence punishable u/S. 467 read with Section 109 of I. P. C. and it was registered as R. C. C. No. 30/1988. It was contended by the petitioner in the complaint that the mother of the complainant had purchased land Gat No. 280 admeasuring 2 hectares 42 Ares situated at Dabhad from Uttamgir Maharaj on 25-6-1987 and she was in possession of the said land as a member of the joint family. The accused persons forged an agreement purporting to have been executed by Uttamgir Maharaj on 20-5-1987 about the same land under which the land was given in possession of the accused persons. It was contended by the petitioner that Uttamgir Maharaj had never executed any such document in favour of the accused persons. On the basis of the said forged document accused No.1 i.e. Respondent No. 2 had filed R. C. S. No. 814/87 against mother of the petitioner seeking declaration of title and also possession of the land. The petitioner filed complaint alleging that the accused persons had committed forgery and on the basis of forged documents, the Respondent No.2 had filed suit. On behalf of the accused it was contended that the said document i.e. agreement purporting to have been executed by Uttamgir Maharaj was already filed before the Civil Court in the said civil suit and therefore, only the Presiding Officer of that Civil Court could file a complaint after coming to the conclusion that the document was forged and no Court could take cognizance of such offence except on the written complaint by the Presiding Officer of that Civil Court or any other Judicial Officer to whom that Presiding Officer is subordinate in view of the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P. C. The learned J. M. F. C. upheld the objection and by order dated 22-9-1994 quashed the said complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 227/94 before Sessions Court. The learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nanded dismissed the Revision Petition. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred present writ petition seeking to quash the orders passed by the Courts below and to restore the complaint to the file of J. M. F. C.

(3.) The record reveals that both the Courts below relied upon authority of the Supreme Court in Gopalkrishna Menon and another v. D. Raja Reddy, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1053, in support of the view that Section 463 defines the offence of forgery and Section 467 punishes forgery of a particular category and therefore, Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. would be attracted and in absence of a complaint by the Court, prosecution would not be maintainable. It appears that there were divergent opinions about the applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr. P. C. about forged documents which were produced in the Court. In view of the difference of opinion in Surjit Singh and others v. Balbir Singh (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 533 and Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another, (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 493, the matter was placed before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another, AIR 2005 SC 2119. In para 5 of Iqbal Singh (supra). Their Lordships referred to observations of the Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh's case as follows :