C.P. SUBHASH versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 23-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 545 
C.P. SUBHASH 
v. 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2013) 
. JANUARY 23, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Pending 
criminal proceedings including FIRs under investigation -
Exercise of powers u/s.482 CrPC or u/Article 226 of the C 
Constitution by the High Court - Scope - Private respondents 
filed suit for declaration of title over landed property by placing 
reliance upon two sale deeds/documents - Appellant filed 
complaint alleging commission of offences punishable u/ 
· ss.468 and 471 /PC - High Court quashed the complaint/FIR D 
- On appeal, held: In cases where the complaint, whether 
lodged before a Court or before the jurisdictional police 
station, makes out the commission of an offence, High Court 
would not in the ordinary course invoke its powers to quash 
such proceedings except in rare and compelling 
E 
circumstances enumerated in the Supreme Court decision in 
Bhajan Lat's case - In the case at hand, it cannot be said that. 
the a/legations made in the complaint did not constitute any 
offence or that the same did not prima facie allege the 
complicity of the accused - Complaint filed by the appellant 
F 
stated the relevant facts and alleged that documents had 
been forged and fabricated only to be used as genuine to 
make a fraudulent and illegal claim over the land owned by 
the appellant - It was wrong for the High Court to hold that 
the respondents concerned were not the makers of the 
G 
documents or that the filing of a civil suit based on the same 
did not constitute an offence - Whether or not the respondents 
concerned had forged the documents and if so what offence 
was committed by them was a matter for investigation which 
545 
H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A could not be prejudged or quashed by the High Court in 
exercise of its powers u/s.482 CrPC or u/Article 226 of the 
Constitution - High Court was thus wrong in quashing the FIR 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Penal Code, 1860 
- ss.468 and 471. 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195(1)(b)(ii) -
Applicability of - Held: s.195{1)(b)(ii) CrPC is attracted only 
when offences enumerated in the said provision have been 
committed with respect to a document after it has been 
produced or given in evidence in any court and during the 
C time the same was in custodia leg is - Bar contained in s. 195 
against taking of cognizance not attracted to the case at hand 
as the sale deeds relied upon for claiming title to the property 
in question had not been forged while they were in custodia 
legis -Penal Code, 1860 - ss.468 and 471. 
D 
The appellant was the General Manager of SNP 
Ventures Pvt. Ltd. while respondents 2, 3 and 4 were 
working with M/s Gorden Woodroff Limited ('GWL') as 
legal advisers/Senior Managers. GWL filed suit for 
E declaration of title qua 11.75 acres of land placing reliance 
upon two sale deeds, dated 10th March, 1922 and 27th 
June, 1922 respectively. SNP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. claiming 
to be in actual physical possession of the said property 
approached the Sub-Registrar's office to verify the 
F genuineness of the two sale deeds relied upon by GWL. 
Verification revealed that both the sale deeds in question 
pertained to transactions between some private parties 
and had no connection whatsoever with GWL. The Sub-
Registrar also informed the appellant that there was no 
G transaction during the year 1922 in respect of the subject 
lands. The appellant filed complaint against respondent 
nos.2, 3 and 4 alleging commission of offences 
punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and FIR was 
accordingly registered. 
H 
C.P. SUBHASH v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
547 
CHENNAI & ORS. 
Aggrieved, respondents 2, 3 and 4 filed petition for 
A 
quashing of the FIR as also investigation in connection 
therewith. The petition was allowed by the High Court 
which quashed registration of the case as also the 
proceedings based on the same. The High Court called 
in aid two precise reasons for doing so - firstly, that the 
B 
allegations made in the complaint even if accepted in their 
entirety did not prima facie constitute an offence or make 
out a case against the respondents and secondly, that no 
Court could, in view of the bar contained in Section 195 
CrPC, take cognizance of offences in question except on c 
a complaint in writing made by the court or the public 
servant concerne

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.