LexGOPALAKRISHNA MENON AND ANOTHER versus D. RAJA REDDY AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
.OOPALAKRISHNA MENON AND ANOTHER
.
~
.
•.D .. RAIA REDDY AND ANOTHER
September 5, 1983
(D. A. DESAI AND RANOANATH MISRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 195(/)(b)(il}-Scope of-In absence
of con1p!aint from appropriate civil court proseruUon for offenre punishable under
s. 467 l.P.C. not sustainable.
lnJian Penal Code-S. 467 read withs. 463-Scope of-Offence punishable
under. s. 467 is offence described in 5. 463.
The appellants filed a civil.suit a1ainst the rcsPondents for ~ecovery of
certain a1nount of money and produced som~ c:>ri~nal documents with the
'plaint. The first respondent filed a complaint aaainst the appellants alleging
forgery of his sig(\ature on one such document and thereby commission of
olf<nces punishable under sections 467 and 471 I.P.C. The appellants objected
to maintainability of the cri!_'ninal action and later moved the Hi&h Court for
quashing the said proceedings.· The appellants contended that in the absence
of con1plaint from the civil court the prosecution was barred in view of
s. 195 (l)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court dismissed
the application and observed that s. 463 l.P.C. cannot be construed to
include s. 467.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD ; The prosecution would not be sustain~ble. [842 BJ
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that
no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described ins. 463 ... -of the Penal
Code, when such offence is aUeg~d to have been committed in respect of a
document produced .. in a procee.diog in any Court ... except on the complaint
in writing of that Court. Section 463 of the Penal Code in a sense defines the
offence of f0rgery and the offence which is made punishable under s. 467 is in
respect of'an offence d~scribed in s. 463. Once it is a1:cepted that s. 463
·defines forgery ands. 467 p1;.nishcs forgery of a particular category, the pro-
vision ins. 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would.im1nediately
be attracted and on the basis that the offence punishable under s. 467 of the
Peaal Code is all offence' described ins. 463, in the absence of a con1plaint by
the Court the prosecution would ~ot be maintainable.
[839 E·G, 840 D, E, H;841 A·B]
Patel Laljib/iai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat, [1971] Suppl. S.C.R.
834; nod S. L. Goswami v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, [1979]
2 S.C.R. 385, referred to.
·
•
r
o. MENON Y. DR.. REDDY (Ranganath Misra, J.)
837
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIS\>ICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 307
of 1983
'
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the ~th November, 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1936 of 1.982.
A. Subba Rao for the Appellant.
B. Kanta Rao for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. -
The short question ansmg in this
appeal by .special leave is whether in the absence of necessary com-
plaint by the Civil Court where a money receipt alleged to have been
forged was produced, prosecution for offences punishable under
sections 467 and 471 read· with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code would
be maintaioabfo. The accused are the appellants and they challange
the dismissal of their application under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh.
B
c
D
The appellants are father and son respectively. They took a
E
printing press from the !st respondent in terms of an 'agreement
dated December 3, 1980, with a view· to carryi'lg on the printing
business. The agreement stipulated that ·the _appellants would have
'to deposit Rs. 20,000 with the'lst respondent and pay Rs. 500 p.m.
as also 50% of the net profits _•to !st respondent. Dispute arose
between the parties over the compliance of the terms of the agreement
F
whereupon the 1st respondent filed against the appellants O.S. No.
609/81 for mandatory injunction and O.S. No. I 140/81 for recov.ery
of damages. Appellants filed O.S. No. 358/81 for refund of Rs.
20,000 claimed to have been deposited with !st respondent and for
recovery of,Rs. 8638 on the footing that the same had been paid to
G
I st respondent by cheques· and in cash. , Along with their plaint
appellants ·produced the original contrac_t as also the money receipt .
for Rs. 20,000 in· support of tbe claim in the suit. After production
of the money receipt in Court, !st respondent filed aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.