RAJ KUMAR SETHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Raj Kumar Sethi for quashing the complaint (Annexure P.2) and the summoning order of Court (Annexure P.3).

(2.) THE petitioner had filed a suit for the recovery of money against certain persons in the Court of Sub -Judge, Ist Class, Amritsar. The learned trial Court vide a judgment dated March 15, 1986 (Annexure P.1) dismissed the suit. The Court held that a bill (Exhibit P.4) produced by the petitioner in evidence was a forged document. In pursuance of this judgment the Presiding Officer of the Court filed a criminal complaint against the Presiding Officer in evidence was a forged document. In pursuance of this judgment the Presiding Officer of the Court filed a criminal complaint against the Presiding Officer under Sections 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code (Annexure P.2). On the basis of this complaint the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, summoned the petitioner under Sections 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code, vide an order dated May 24, 1986 (Annexure P.3).

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Presiding Officer of the trial Court was not competent to file the impugned complaint (Annexure P.2) and as such the complaint as well as the order of summoning passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate should be quashed. This contention is well founded. It is held by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 481 : 1986(2) P.L.R. 339, that Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Criminal Procedure Code, is limited in its operation to the offences mentioned in this Section if committed in regard to a document produced or given in evidence in such proceedings, while the document is in the custody of the Court. It has not applicable to a case in which such a document is fabricated prior to its production or given in evidence. Thus, the Presiding Officer of the trial Court could have filed the impugned complaint under Sections 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code, only if the bill had been manipulated after having been filed in the Court while it was in the custody of the Court. He was not competent to file the complaint on the finding that the petitioner had produced a fabricated document in evidence.