SARDOOL SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. NASIB KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code effort has been made by the accused -petitioners to get quashed the proceedings pending against them before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh under Sec. 420/471, Indian Penal Code. These proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for they are said to be instrumental in forging a will. On the strength thereof they were successful in getting transferred from the Estate Officer, Chandigarh one of the properties of the alleged testator in the name of Amarjit Kaur, petitioner.

(2.) One of the broad grounds taken in the petition is that besides the criminal complaint, there are civil matters pending in the courts wherein the will in question is the subject matter of dispute between the parties and those courts are likely to pronounce about the genuineness or otherwise of the will. Suggestedly in the presence thereof it would be futile to have another opinion of the criminal court in that regard. Thus these proceedings are termed as an abuse of the process of Court. The second ground taken is that in the presence of the aforesaid civil proceedings there is a bar under Sec. 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a court cannot take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 471 of the Indian Penal Code when the offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced in a proceeding.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on these two grounds. So far as the first point is concerned there is no legal basis to project the same. Mere expediency in that regard is of no consequence. Merely because the petitioners are residing at a far away place is also no ground to stay the proceedings in a criminal court as suggested in the alternative. So far as the second point is concerned, that is concluded against the petitioners by a Division Bench of this court reported as Kunail Singh and another v/s. State of Punjab, (1983)10 Cr. L.T. 129. It has been held therein that if an offence of forgery was committed much earlier and later the document came to be produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding then Sec. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code would not be attracted. The view taken to the contrary by a Single Bench in Sita Singh v/s. State of Punjab : (1976)78 P.L.R. 11 has no binding force in view of the Division Bench Judgment. Thus neither on the two points have the petitioners any case for interference under the inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.