LexASHOK GULABRAO BONDRE versus VILAS MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. ASHOK GULABRAO BONDRE v. VILAS MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2011) APRIL 12, 2023 [B. R. GAVAI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195 – Documents allegedly fabricated and forged prior to filing in evidence, embargo u/s.195 if applicable – On appeal, held: s.195(1)(b)(ii) would be attracted only when the offence enumerated in the said provision was committed in respect of a document after it has been produced or filed in evidence during proceedings before any Court, i.e. during the time when the document is custodia legis – In such a case, the Court will be entitled to take cognizance of the offence only on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant – Impugned judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court and the High Court set aside – Matter remitted back to JMFC for considering the complaint of the appellant on its own merits. Iqbal Singh Marwa and Another v. Meenakshi Marwah and Another (2005) 4 SCC 370 : [2005] 2 SCR 708 – followed. Surjit Singh and Others v. Balbir Singh (1996) 3 SCC 533 : [1996] 3 SCR 70; Sachida Nand Singh and Another v. State of Bihar and Another (1998) 2 SCC 493 : [1998] 1 SCR 492 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2005] 2 SCR 708 followed Para 11 [1996] 3 SCR 70 referred to Para 16 [1998] 1 SCR 492 referred to Para 17 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur in CRLA No. 3121 of 2009. [2023] 3 S.C.R. 820 820 A B C D E F G H 821 Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Sachin Patil, Satyajit A Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Gajanan N Tirthkar, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Yougant Dhillon, Advs. for the Appellant. Rahul Chitnis, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Aditya Kumar, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. R. GAVAI, J. 1. The appeal arises on a very narrow canvass. 2. The appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents alleging that the respondents had committed the offence punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 470 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). 3. The main allegation made by the appellant is that respondent No.2 - Ramprasad Pancheshwar had prepared false and forged documents, namely, personal recognizance bond and surety bond in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2003 and the rest of the respondents conspired and actively helped respondent No.2 for forging the said documents. 4. It is the case of the appellant that those documents had been eventually filed on record in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2003 pending against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramtek (hereinafter referred to as the “JMFC”). 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 6th November 2004 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved thereby, the revision petition came to be filed. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide order dated 14th March 2005 has held that such a complaint could not have been filed except in writing of the Court concerned or some other Court, that too a subordinate one. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, found that the allegations made by the revision petitioners were serious in nature, and therefore, directed that if any application is filed by the appellant under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), the learned JMFC would make a suitable preliminary enquiry and ASHOK GULABRAO BONDRE v. VILAS MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS A B C D E F G H 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. thereafter, record his finding to that effect as contemplated under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 8. The said order passed by the Revisional Court came to be challenged by the appellant before the High Court in an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The same came to be rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 9. We have heard Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rahul Chitnis and Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. Mr. Sachin Patil submits that the alleged forgery had not been committed during the pendency of the proceedings. It is submitted that it is the contention of the appellant that the respondents had forged the documents earlier
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.