JIWA RAM Vs. GANGOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant Jiwa Ram was prosecuted for an offence under Section 420, Penal Code, on a private complaint. A petition of compromise was filed in the case stating that the offence had been compounded. The complainant alleged that certain words were interpolated in the compromise after it had been signed and executed. The complainant, therefore, filed a further complaint against Jiwa Ram and two others, namely Fazal Ahmad and Kishori. In this complaint it was alleged that Jiwa Ram, Fazal Ahmad and Kishori had committed offences under Section 465/109, Indian Penal Code, and, further, that Jiwa Ram had committed an offence under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, also. The case proceeded in the Court of the trying Magistrate up to the stage when prosecution evidence was finished and charges were framed against the three accused persons named above and a date was fixed for hearing the defence evidence. The three accused persons, who are the applicants in this reference and who shall hereafter be referred to asthe applicants, made an application objecting to the case being proceeded with on the ground that the prosecution was illegal inasmuch as the offences charged fell within the purview of Section 195 (1) (C), Criminal P. C? and the Court was not competent to take cognizance of these offences on a private complaint. The learned Magistrate ruled that Fazal Ahmad and Kishori were not parties to the proceedings in which the compromise application was filed and therefore cognizance of the case could be taken against them on a private complaint. The learned Magistrate, further, ruled that Jiwa Ram could be prosecuted for an offence under Section 465/109, Indian Penal Code, on a private complaint because the offence was alleged to have been committed outside the Court before the compromise Was filed. The learned Magistrate, however, held that for Jiwa Ram's prosecution under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, a complaint from the Court was necessary and directed the chargesheet to be amended by dropping the charge under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, against Jiwa Ram.

(2.) The applicants went up in revision to the Sessions Judge of Muttra who has referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the entire proceedings against all the three applicants be quashed. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has not taken the trouble to scrutinise the judgment of the learned Magistrate with proper care. The learned Sessions Judge seems to think that the learned Magistrate had ruled that Section 195 (i) (c), Criminal P.C., did not apply to the case because Section 465 was not specifically mentioned therein. The learned Magistrate does not appear to have said anything of the kind in his order. As already stated, the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for overruling the objections of the applicants were that two of them were not parties to the earlier proceedings and one of them, was alleged to have committed the offence before the compromise petition was brought on the record of the Court. The learned Sessions Judge has not disclosed any other reason for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate against Jiwa Ram and for quashing the proceedings as against him.

(3.) I have, however, given independent consideration to this matter and have reached the conclusion that cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by Jiwa Ram could be taken only upon a complaint of the Court and could not be taken upon a private complaint. The learned Magistrate, in overruling Jiwa Ram's objection, has relied upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in King Emperor V/s. Kushal Pal Singh A.I.R. (18) 1931 ALL. 443 wherein it was laid down that Clause (c) of Section 195, Criminal P.C., applies only to cases where an offence is committed by a party, as such, to a proceeding in any Court in respect of a document which has been produced or given in evidence in such proceeding; Jiwa Ram was already a party to the proceeding in which the compromise petition was put in. The compromise petition was prepared with the avowed object of being produced in those proceedings. The object of the alleged forgery was to have recorded a compromise differing in its contents from the one settled between the parties. If it be ultimately found. that the offence of forgery was committed by Jiwa Earn, there cannot be slightest doubt that lit was committed by him as a party to the proceedings under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, I am, therefore, of the opinion that Jiwa Ram cannot be I prosecuted for the alleged offence under Section 465/-109, Indian Penal Code, on a private complaint and the proceedings against him should be quashed.