IQBAL SINGH MARWAH versus MEENAKSHI ETC.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 11-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 18 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
IQBAL SINGH MARWAH 
v 
MEENAKSHI ETC. 
MARCH 11, 2005 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., 8.N. AGRAWAL, H.K. SEMA, G.P. MATHUR 
AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 195(l)(b)(ii): Cognizance 
of certain offences on complaint of Court,;_Bar contained in Section 
C 195(/)(b)(ii)-Applicability and scope of-Held: The said Section would be 
applicable only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been 
committed with respect to a document _after it has been produced or given in 
evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document 
was in custodia legis-Offence committed should be of such type which directly 
D affects the administration of justice-However, Court is not bound to make a 
complaint in this regard-Such a course will be adopted only if the interest 
of justice requires and not in every case. 
Interpretation of statutes-Headings vis-a-vis Marginal Notes-Held : 
Language employed in a heading cannot be used to give a different effect to 
E clear words of the Section where there cannot be any doubt as to their ordinary 
meaning-They are not to be treated as if they were marginal notes or were 
introduced into the Act merely for the purpose of classifying the enactments-
They constitute an important part of the Act itself, and may be read not only 
as explaining the Sections which immediately follow them. 
F 
Words and phrases-Expression "when such offence is alleged to have 
been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a 
proceeding in a Court"-Connotation of-In the context of Section 195(l)(b)(ii) 
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
In a probate proceedings, the appellant no. I filed a will allegedly 
G executed by his deceased brother. Respondent contested the proceedings 
on the ground that the will was forged and moved criminal court for 
prosecution of appellants and their mother for forgery. The complaint 
was dismissed on the ground that Section 195(l)(b)(i) and (ii) CrPC 
H 
708 
• 
-
1.S. MARWAHv. MEENAKSHI 
709 
operated as a bar for taking cognizance of the offences alleged. Respondent A 
then filed revision before sessions judge who relying upon Sachida Nand 
Singh case* held that the bar contained in Section 195 (l)(b)(ii) Cr.P£. 
would not apply where forgery of a document was committed before the 
said document was produced in Court. The revision petition was 
accordingly allowed and the matter was remanded back. The appellants B 
unsuccessfully moved High Court for quashing of the order. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Appellant contended that the purpose of Section 195 is to bar private 
prosecution where the cause of justice is sought to be perverted leaving it 
to the Court itself to uphold its dignity and prestige; that if a very C 
restricted interpretation is given to Section 195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., as held 
in Sachida Nand Singh case*, the protection afforded by the provision will 
be virtually reduced to a vanishing point, defeating the very object of the 
enactment; that the provision does not completely bar the prosecution of 
a person who has committed an offence of the type described 'thereunder, 
but introduces a safeguard in the sense that he can be so prosecuted only D 
on the complaint of the Court where the document has been produced or 
given in evidence or of some other Court to which that Court is 
subordinate. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD : Sachida Nand Singh case* has been correctly decided and 
the view taken therein is correct. Section 195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be 
attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have 
been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or 
given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when F 
the document was in custodia legis. (731-8-C) 
Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (199812SCC493, affirmed. 
Surjit Singh v. Balbir $ingh, (1996) 3 SCC 533, referred to. 
2. Section 195 Cr.P.C. deals with three distinct categories of offences G 
which have been described in clauses (a), (b)(i) and (b)(ii). Clause (a) 
deals with offences which directly affect the functioning of or discharge 
of lawful duties of a public servant. Clause (b)(i) refers to offences which 
relate to giving or fabricating false evidence or making a false declaration 
in any judicial proceeding or before a Court of justice or before a public H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) 2 S.C.R. 
A servant who is boun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.