NARAIN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition, the petitioner seeks the quashment of the F.I.R. No. 158/99 R.S. Balotra u/s. 467, 468, 471, and 420 IPC.

(2.) MR . Kumbhat, pointing out that the receipt alleged to have been forged was filed in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, contends that the Court only can file complaint for the offence of forgery. He files an affidavit purported to have been sworn by Nena Ram before the Notary Public on 19.8.1999 in favour of the petitioner. Relying on the cases of Kailash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan 1998 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1001, Kartar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1985 RLR -192 and Dharam Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1985 RLR -282 he submits that the F.I.R. should be quashed.

(3.) THE Apex Court in the case of Sachida Nand (supra) has clearly held that bar against prosecution in respect of offences of forgery of a document u/s. 195(1)(b)(ii) is hot applicable to a case where forgery or the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court. It was clearly held that the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr. P.C. applies only when the offence is alleged to have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, the authorities relied on by Mr. Kumbhat can not provide any help to the petitioner. There is thus no merit in the first contention of Mr. Kumbhat.