MANJLA ALIAS MAHENDRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482, Cr. PC, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 502/2001 on 14-3-2002, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 195, Cr. PC and has also challenged the legality of the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 52/2002 by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha on 4-7-2002, whereby the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a criminal case was pending in the Court of JMFC Vidisha against the petitioner No. 1. Due to his non-appearance in that criminal case, the warrants of arrest were issued against him. Subsequently, he appeared and he was directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds. Petitioner No. 2 was the surety in the case. The learned Magistrate found that on 9-3-1999, petitioner No. 2 appeared before the Court of ACJM Vidisha and produced the sale deed dated 16-7-1996 of Mohar Singh s/o Bhanwar Singh and impersonate himself as Mohar Singh s/o Bhanwar Singh. The Trial Court rejected the aforesaid document of surety bond and directed Police State Dehat, Distt. Vidisha to register the crime and investigate the matter. Later on, the matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 205,419,467, 468,471 and 120-B, IPC against the petitioners. In the course of trial, petitioner submitted an application and prayed that procedure laid down under Section 195 read with Section 340, Cr. PC is required to be followed in this case. Since the procedure has not been followed, the trial deserves to be dropped. But the Trial Court as well the Revisional Court both rejected the application, against which the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC for quashing the charge-sheet on the ground that the Trial Court has not followed the procedure laid down under Section 195 read with Section 340, Cr. PC, as the petitioner is entitled to get the protection of Section 195 and prayed for quashment of the charge-sheet.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the offence of forgery in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court is committed, no Court can take cognizance of any such offence except the complaint is filed in writing by the Court concerned, as laid down under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) and also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjil Singh v. Balbir Singh 1996 III AD (SC )217 , AIR1996 SC 1592 , 1996 Crilj2304 , JT1996 (3 )SC 363 , 1996 (2 )SCALE865 , (1996 )3 SCC533 , [1996 ]3 SCR70 and submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision the Bar in taking cognizance under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) gets attracted and Criminal Court is prohibited from taking cognizance unless the complaint in writing is filed as per procedure under Section 340 of the Cr. PC.