M.NARAYANDAS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 19-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M.NARAYANDAS 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2003 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 482-Appellant filed suit 
for permanent injunction in consequence of a previous partition suit-
Certain documents relied upon in the written statement therein claimed to 
A 
B 
be forged and fabricated by the appellant-Appellant filed a criminal C 
complaint and-F.J.R. was registered-High Court quashed the FIR. 
holding the complaint as frivolous, vexatious and false-Held, power to 
quash to be exercised very sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of 
rare cases-Court not justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to 
reliabil;ty or genuineness of allegations in F.J.R. -Examination of documents 
to ascertain their veracity before concluding that the complaint was D 
vexatious, frivolous and false not justified-Order quashing the FIR. 
totally unsustainable-Penal Code-Sections 468, 470, 471 and 120B. 
Sections 195 and 340--Procedure to be followed when forged and 
fabricated documents produced as evidence in Court-Provisions inappli- E 
cable during investigation and do not control or circumscribe power of 
police to investigate-On completion of investigation embargo under 
Section 195 applies and court is incompetent to take cognizance-Court 
may later file complaint on basis of FIR. and material collected during 
investigation following procedure under Section 340--0nly question at 
stage of investigation is whether investigation should be permitted to F 
proceed or not. 
The appellant owned a plot of land for which he entered into an 
agreement to sell, with his sister, permitting her to reside therein as 
a licensee. Later on her family members filed a partition suit, also G 
including the said plot ofland. The appellant filed a suit for permanent 
injunction apprehending illegal transfer of the said plot of land by the 
family members of his sister, in their names. While filing the written 
statement the said family members relied on certain documents. The 
appellant claimed them to be forged and fabricated and never executed 
by him. Thereafter, he filed a criminal complaint and an F.I.R. under H 
973 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Sections 486, 470, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was 
registered. High Court in a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code quashed the F.I.R. Hence this appeal. 
Respondents contended that the High Court was justified in 
B concluding that the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious; that 
as the case fell under Section 195 Cr. PC., provisions of Chapter XXVI 
of the Cr. P.C. would apply to the exclusion of Chapter XII of the Cr. 
P.C. therefore an application was to be made to the Court and it was 
improper to file a complaint directly with the police; that in the process 
they were deprived of the right to appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. 
C and the right under Article 21 of the Constitution oflndia as the Court 
could not apply its mind on the same; and that as the High Court had 
not considered whether Section 195 Cr. P.C. applied to the case or not, 
it was a fit case for remand. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The power to quash must be exercised very sparingly 
and with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. The court would 
not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or 
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. The 
E court also cannot inquire whether the allegations in the complaint are 
likely to be established or not. (981-D) 
1.2. High Court considered the case of the appellant in the 
complaint and the case made out by the respondents. It examined 
F documents, comparing signatures and concluded that they were not 
false or fabricated and quashed 
the complaint holding it to be 
vexatious, frivolous and false. High Court did not conclude, as it could 
not, that the allegation made in the complaint, if taken at their face 
value and accepted in their entirety, did not primafacie constitute any 
G offence or make out a case against the accused. It also did not conclude, 
as it could not, that the allegations failed to disclose a cognizable 
offence justifying an investigation by the police. The conclusion that 
the complaint was false, vexatious and frivolous was based on material 
produced by the respondents and it was improper to rely upon the 
same without evidence, which makes the order quashing the F.I.R. 
H to

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