SWARNLATA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Cr PC for quashing the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the complaint field by the O.P. No. 2, Mahipal Mishra being PCR No. 351 of 2004 before CJM. Godda.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this petition are that long drawn Court proceedings have continued for nearly 25 yeas for the post of Village Pradhan between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 in the Court of S.D.O. and Deputy Commissioner, Godda. after death of Abhinandan Thakur father of the petitioner. It is alleged that during the pendency of Mis. Revenue petitions, the petitioner has used and produced before the Revenue Courts some affidavits etc creating false and forged signatures and L.T.Is. It is also alleged that fradulent action taken by the petitioner in the proceedings before the different Courts during this period amounts to certain offences under Sections 182, 193, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IN this context my attention was drawn towards provision of Section 340(1), Cr PC. Learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 placed reliance upon 1971 SCC (Cr) 548 and 1984 SCC (Cr) 415 in which effects of prohibition of Section 195, Cr PC was considered. Honble Apex Court in 1971 SCC (Cr) 48 found and held that a suit dismissed being filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2000/ - on the basis of forged cheque and the complaint petition filed later on under Sections 467, 471 IPC alleging placing reliance on forged cheque was maintainable under Section 467, IPC. Similarly the Honble Apex Court in 1984 SCC (Cr) 415 held that proceedings under Sections 467, 471 and 120 -B, IPC were not covered under Section 195(1), Cr PC.