GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. SANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the quashing of proceedings in a complaint raising plea of limitation.

(2.) It is beyond dispute that the petitioner in a civil litigation between the parties produced a rent receipt dated 1-7-1973. The court of the first instance found the receipt to be a forged one. The first appellate court as also this court in subsequent appeals affirmed that view. The complainant then filed a complaint against the petitioner under S. 465, Penal Code. After recording preliminary evidence, process under S. 465, Penal Code, was issued against the petitioner. Before the charge could be framed, the petitioner raised the plea of limitation on the strength that S. 465 attracted a punishment of imprisonment which may extend to two years. And since limitation for the purpose was three years inaccordance with S.468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of court.

(3.) The learned Magistrate took the view that the matter had remained sub judice before the appellate courts in civil litigation till 18-1-1982 and thus the complaint filed on 18-8-1983 was within limitation. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, the view of the learned Magistrate seemingly was not; challenged but challenge to the proceedings was made on a different ground altogether" and that was regarding the supposed bar to proceedings under S. 195, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that since the forgery to the document had been committed outside court and the document had been presented in the forged state, bar of S.195, Criminal Procedure Code, was not attracted. View of the learned Judge is in accord with the view of this court in Harbans Singh v. Punjab State, Criminal Misc. No. 5095-M of 1985, decided on 7-5-1986.