BALBIR SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a Civil Suit between the parties, an agreement was introduced in evidence by the respondents; firstly it was the photostat copy thereof and later its original.

(2.) IN the meantime, the petitioner lodged a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate complaining that the document introduced in the Civil Court was a forged document. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code. When the accused were summoned, a half-hearted objection was raised that the original had not been produced before the Civil Court but in the meantime the original document found its way on the file of the Civil Court. The second objection taken was that it would be the Civil Court who would opine whether the document was forged or not; in the event of it being forged it was that Court which could, in exercise of powers under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lodge a complaint in a Criminal Court. The learned Magistrate upheld the objection, dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused.

(3.) THE afore-referred to case of the Supreme Court seemingly rubbed against the ratio of a Division Bench of the Court in Karnail Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, 1983(1) Recent CR 38 : 1983 Criminal Law Journal 713. I had referred the matter to a Full Bench for settlement of the law in that regard. Its decision has come on 7th May, 1986 in Criminal Revision No. 5095-M of 1985. (1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 481) In accordance there with, the view of both the Courts is unsustainable. It has been held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted only in the case of documents in relation to which forgery is committed in Court and not to pre-fabricated documents which are introduced in Courts of law. In the instant case, the forged document allegedly had been forged as such outside the Court and had been introduced in evidence in the civil Suit. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would thus be not a bar for the entertainment of the instant complaint. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and orders of both the Courts below are set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the learned Magistrate on 25th August, 1986. Petition allowed.