KISHAN CHAND GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN civil suit titled as Manmohan Singh v. Harbhajan Singh Anand etc. aforesaid Manmohan Singh and Kishan Chand Gupta allegedly forged the rent note marked 'F' and receipts marked 'A' and 'E' for payment of rent by Manmohan Singh to Kishan Chand Gupta, in order to set up a case of false tenancy in favour of Kishan Chand Gupta. The above referred suit was decided by the Additional Senior SubJudge, Farozepur, on 28th February, 1985. It was held therein that Manmohan Singh and Kishan Chand Gupta had forged the above referred rent note and the receipts. On these premises, Shri N. S. Saini, Sub Judge/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot, initiated proceedings under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code and called upon these two persons to submit their explanation. On their failure to do so, he filed a complaint for offences under Sections 471/485/193. Indian Penal Code.

(2.) BEING aggrieved against the filing of the said complaint, both the accused-petitioners filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings, mainly on the ground that as the alleged forgery of documents was not committed after the production of documents in Court, the said Court had no jurisdiction under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code to file such a complaint.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record. There is no dispute between the parties that the above referred rent note and receipts regarding payment of rent were allegedl forged by the petitioners prior to the filing of these documents before the Civil Court. Under these circumstances, this case is covered by the rule of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Harbans Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, 1986(2) Recent C.R. 481, wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Indian Penal Code, pertain to offences of forgery committed with regard to documents already produced or filed before the Court and not to documents forged prior to their production or filing before the Court. Thus, under these circumstances, the Court was not obliged to file the above referred complaint, especially when the intent of the legislature in taking cognizance of such offences, except on the complaint of the Concerned Court was to protect the documentary evidence, already filed or produced before the Court. Therefore, the filing of the above referred complaint has resulted in the abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be struck off. It is ordered accordingly by accepting this petition. The aggrieved private party shall however, be at liberty to file such complaint.