NARSING DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the order dated 11-10-85 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh in Cr. Original Case No. 284/84 (State v. Narsing Das and Others) whereby the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner under Section 195(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected and the case was ordered to be listed for hearing arguments for charge.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this petition are that Police Station. Ratangarh submitted a charge sheet against the petitioners for the trial of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 14-11-84. The petitioners submitted an application on 8-5-85 and raised an objection that the Court could not take cognizance on a challan submitted by the police after investigation on a report by the complainant Ramavtar s/o Inder Chand Agarwal, R/o Ratangarh because the alleged forged document i.e. the affidavit was produced in the proceedings for hearing of bail petition in the High Court. Therefore, unless a complaint is presented by the High Court, cognizance of the alleged offence in other words the petitioners contended that the cognizance of the offence a alleged against them is barred by the provisions contained in Section 195(b)(ii) Cr. P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate heard the Add. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons and recorded the impugned order in which it was held that the bar contained in Section 195(b)(ii) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The allegations against the petitioners, according to the F.I.R. lodged on 22-8-84, are that in pursuance of the conspiracy petitioner Nand Lal obtained signatures of Inder Chand son of Lal Chand Dhanuka resident of Ratangarh on two blank papers in the evening of 11-8-84 saying that the papers are to be submitted to the Income-tax Department. Thereafter the brother of Nand Lal petitioner Deoki Nandan said that the blank papers signed by him could not serve the purpose and therefore he was asked to sign a stamp paper. Shri Inder Chand signed the blank stamp paper of Rs. 5/- having full faith on the petitioners. They also took his signatures at two places in a register. Still further, the allegation is that the petitioners got forged an affidavit of Inder Chand complainant and in order to save their father Narsing Das and Shiv Ratan in a case initiated by Shri Devi Prasad. The complainant demanded the papers back and the petitioners admitted their mistake and promised to return the original stamp as well as two white papers. They also supplied a photostat copy of the affidavit. On this report the case was registered at Police Station, Ratangarh for the aforesaid offences was resulted in challan as stated above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on bare reading of the First Information Report it is revealed that the alleged forged document i.e. the affidavit was made to be produced in the Court in order to save Narsing Das and Shiv Ratan. This alleged forged affidavit and certain other papers were produced in the High Court on 23-8-84 and a copy of the said documents was supplied to the learned Public Prosecutor on 21-8-84. After hearing the parties and on considering the documents the bail application was disposed of on 3-9-84. Therefore, the provisions of Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code are fully applicable in the present case. The learned Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance in the absence of proper complaint by the Court where the document was produced for consideration. The concerned Court can only decide whether any prosecution should be launched or not against the petitioners. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P.C. are not attracted to the facts of this case because the alleged forgery was not committed by the petitioners as party to the proceedings in the High Court. In view of this situation the police was competent to investigate the offences on the report of the complainant and to submit the charge-sheet and the Magistrate is fully empowered to take cognizance. It is further contended that the complainant was not party to the proceedings of bail application heard and decided by the Hon'ble High Court. It is urged that if private complaint or report is barred on the ground that the alleged forged document has been produced in the Court then in every case of making a forged document the accused will after making forgery submit it in any proceeding instituted by him or any other person and take the protection of Section 195 Cr. P.C. debarring the complainant from seeking legal remedy against the accused for committing the act of forgery. According to the learned counsel for the complainant the bar under Section 195 is applicable only when the forged document is produced in the Court in a proceeding by a party to the proceedings and such forgery having been committed by that person after becoming the party to the proceedings. Reliance was placed on AIR 1974 SC 299 : (1974 Cri LJ 350); Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 2225 : (1976 Cri LJ 1732); Legal Remembrancer of Government of West Bengal v. Hari Das Mundra and 1994 Cri LJ 1389 : (AIR 1994 SC 1549); Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited 1985 Cr LR 154 (Rajasthan); Kartar Singh v. The State of Raj, which is based on the decision Gopalkrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy, 1983 SCC (Cri) 822 : (1983 Cri LJ 1599) in support of his contention.