LexGEORGE BHAKTAN versus RABINDRA LELE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 11 S.C.R. 520 • A GEORGE BHAKTAN v. RABINDRA LELE & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 2165 of 2014) B SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.195(1)(b)(ii) and 482 - Prohibition in s. 195(1)(b)(ii) - Applicability of - c Appellant filed complaint u/s.200 CrPC against respondents alleging commission of offences u/ss. 425, 468 and 471 /PC - Magistrate took cognizance - Order of cognizance challenged on ground that the alleged forged document was produced in a suit brought by the respondents, therefore, D prohibition contained in s. 195(1)(b)(ii) was attracted - High Court quashed order of cognizance passed by the Magistrate - Propriety - Held: High Court did not advert to any aspect pertaining to allegations in the complaint or the material brought on record to arrive at a conclusion whether a prima E facie case was made out or not - It singularly addressed the controversy on the legal backdrop that when a document is produced in a civil proceeding, it attracts the bar ul s.195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC and, therefore, the complaint is not tenable in law - On facts, there was no a/legation that the F document was forged when the matter was sflbjudice before the Civil Court - High Court erred in relying on the principle stated in Gopalakrishna Menon case - Dicta of the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah case squarely applicable - Order passed by the High Court accordingly set G aside - Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The High Court has not adverted to any aspect H 520 • GEORGE BHAKTAN v. RABINDRA LELE 521 pertaining to the allegations in the complaint or the material A brought on record to arrive at a conclusion whether a prima facie case has been made out or not. It has singularly addressed the controversy on the legal backdrop that when a document is produced in a civil proceeding, it attracts the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) B of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the complaint is not tenable in law. In the case at hand, there is no allegation that document was forged when the matter was subjudice before the Civil Court. The dicta of the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah case is c squarely applicable. The High Court clearly erred in relying on the principle stated in Gopalakrishna Menon's case. The matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal. [Paras 11, 20, 22] [526-F-G; 527-A; 531-F-G; 532-0] Gopalakrishna Menon and Anr. v. D. Raja Reddy and D Anr. (1983) 4 sec 240: 1983 (3) SCR 836 - held overruled. ' Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another v. Meenakshi Marwah and Another (2005) 4 SCC 370 - followed. E Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another (1998) 2 sec 493 - relied on. Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others (1976) 3 SCC 736: 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 123; State F of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. State of Gujarat (1971) 2 SCC 376; Raghunath v. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 564; Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 SCC 628; Legal Remembrancer of Govt. of W.B. v. Haridas Mundra G (1976) 1 SCC 555; Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh (1996) 3 SCC 533 and M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras 1954 SCR 1144 - referred to. H A B c D E F G H 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. Case Law Reference: 1983 (3) SCR 836 held overruled Para 7 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 123 referred to (2005) 4 sec 370 followed 1992 supp (1) sec 335 (1998) 2 sec 493 (1971) 2 sec 376 (1973) 1 sec 564 (1974) 3 sec 628 (1976) 1 sec 555 (1996) 3 sec 533 1954 SCR 1144 referred to relied on referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to Para 7 Para 9 Para 10 Para 12 Para 12 Para 12 Para 12 Para 12 Para 13 Para 18 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2165 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2011 in MC No. 1 of 2010, in CRLMC No. 5808 of 2001 and 03.03.2012 in CRLMC No. 5808 of 2001 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan for the Appellant. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, R. Santhan Krishnan, Aditya Kumar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered JUDGMENT 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question • • GEORGE BHAKTAN v. RABINDRA LELE 523 the legal defensibility of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.