GURU BIPIN SINGH versus SH. CHONGTHAM MANIHAR SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 11-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GURU BIPIN SINGH 
v. 
SH. CHONGTHAM MANIHAR SINGH AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 11, 1996. 
[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 420, 465, 468 and 500-Seeking initiation 
of Criminal Proceedings-Earlier a Complaint had been filed, which had 
ended in compromise with tendering of apology-Repetition of same offence 
alleged-Whether fresh cause of action accrned-Held, no legally admissible 
evidence availablr-Commission of forgery under Section 463 has to be 
there-Making of any false document or a part thereof must-In absence of 
forgery the allegation under Section 420 would fail-Section 468 intimately 
connected with Sections 420 and 465. 
A 
B 
c 
Evidence Act : Section 33-Proviso-Reliance sought to be placed on D 
certain statement recorded in the first complaint-Held, the same is inadmis-
sible in law inasmuch as the requirements have not been complied with. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136-Normally invoked only where 
there is mis-carriage of justicr-Could also be invoked where continuance of E 
proceedings would merely be waste of court's time as no useful purpose would 
be served. 
A complaint had been filed in early 1966 under Section 500 IPC 
against the appellant. It, however ended in compromise in 1968. The 
appellant had tendered an apology and it was accepted. The complaint F 
pertained to the book titled "Govinda Sangeet Lila Vilasa" which was 
published by the appellant in 1964 for which he had heel! awarded Sangeet 
Natak Academy Award. The award was in token of the learned presentation 
of the subject. 
The publication of his article by the appellant in "Dances of Manipur G 
the classical tradition" in 1989 led to the filing of a fresh complaint on the 
ground that a fresh cause of action had accrued inasmuch as the appellant 
repeated the same offence which· was the subject matter of the earlier 
complaint. This compendium contained an article by the appellant titled 
"Theory : the textual tradition" in which it had been again stated by the H 
611 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A appellant that the said book (Govinda Sangeet Leela Vilasa) had been 
written by King Bhagyachandra in 18th Century, a part of whose 
manuscript had been published at page 101. So, the appellant had 
reiterated his stand that the first book, which was the subject matter of 
1966 complaint, is based on King, Bhagyachandra's write-up. The allega-
B tion was that Bhagyachandra being illiterate could not have written the 
manuscript, and the appellant in order to give credence to his book falsely 
represented to the readers that the same is based on manuscript written 
by the King. 
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance of the complaint 
C against the appellant under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 420 
IPC and ordered issuance of warrant of arrest against him. Appellant 
approached the High Court, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. 
The High Court having dismiss~d the revision petition, this Court has been 
approached under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
D 
It was contended for the appellant that the proceeding was an abuse 
of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed because of there 
being no legally admissible evidence against him and also because no 
offence had been made out. The complaint had become stale inasmuch as 
relating to the selfsame matter a complaint had been filed earlier under 
E Section 500 IPC, which ended in a compromise. To re-agitate the same 
matter again was not for any bonafide purpose, but because of jealousy 
against the appellant as he was awarded by the Sangeet Natak Academy 
for his work, which was also published by him. It was also contended that 
in the earlier case an apology had been tendered by the appellant, which 
was accepted. 
F 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that a fresh cause of 
action had accrued foasmuch as the appellant repeated the same offence 
in his article published subsequently, in which it had been again wrongly 
stated by the appellant that the said book had been written by King 
G Bhagyachandra. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. For making a false document, the person concerned has 
to make, sign, seal or execute the same. The appellant had not made, 
H signed, sealed or executed the alleged manuscript inasmuch as the allega-
{ 
BIPIN SINGH v. CHONGTHAM MANIHAR SINGH 
613 
tion is that the appellant ha~ passed on some writing as representing the A 
same to be in th

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