M/S BANDEKAR BROTHERS PVT. LTD. & ANR versus PRASAD VASSUDEV KENI, ETC. ETC

Citation: [2020] 10 S.C.R. 1075 · Decided: 02-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 17 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1075
M/S BANDEKAR BROTHERS PVT. LTD. & ANR
v.
PRASAD VASSUDEV KENI, ETC. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 546-550 of 2017)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.340 – Penal Code,
1860 – ss.191 and 192 – Respondent/accused-proprietory concern
had shared a business relationship with the appellants – Dispute
arose between the parties, as a result of which various suits were
filed by the appellants – The respondents filed their written statements
and counter-claims in the said suits filed by the appellants – The
appellants filed criminal complaints and contended that respondent/
accused had given false evidence and had forged debit notes and
made false entries in books of accounts – The Magistrate converted
the said complaints into private complaints and issued process u/
ss.191, 192 and 193 IPC – The respondent filed revision applications
against the said orders, in which it was stated that the bar contained
in s.195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.PC and the procedure u/s.340 Cr.PC being
mandatory could not be circumvented – In a counter-affidavit to
the revision application, the appellants for the first time took the
plea that offences u/ss.463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474,
475 and 477-A of the IPC were also made out against the
respondents, as a result of which a private complaint would be
maintainable – The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision
and quashed the complaints – Writ petitions filed by the appellants
were dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Iqbal Singh
Marwah case is clear authority for the proposition that in cases
which fall u/s.195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.PC, the document that is said
to have been forged should be custodia legis after which the forgery
takes place – Further, various judgments of the Supreme Court also
lay down that when s.195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.PC is attracted, the ratio
of Iqbal Singh Marwah case is not attracted and that therefore, if
false evidence is created outside the Court premises attracting ss.191/
192 of the IPC, the aforesaid ratio would not apply so as to validate
a private complaint filed for offences made out under these sections
– A perusal of the complaints filed in the instant case, leaves no
[2020] 10 S.C.R. 1075
1075
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
manner of doubt that the first complaint attracts the provisions of
s.191 of the IPC and the second complaint attracts the provisions
of s.192 of the IPC – The debit notes that are said to be created by
the respondents, it is clear that the debit notes were not ‘false
documents’ u/s.464 IPC, inasmuch they had not been made with the
intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or
under the authority of some other person – Since this basic ingredient
of forgery itself is not made out, none of the sections that are sought
to be relied upon in chapter XVIII of the IPC can thus said to be
even prima facie attracted in the facts of the present case – The
facts clearly show that the two complaints correctly invoked s.195
r/w. s.340 of the Cr.PC and were then sought to be converted into
private complaints thereby attempting to fix a square peg in a round
role – This has correctly been interdicted by the Sessions Court in
revision and by the High Court under appeal – While it is correct to
say that the order of conversion and issuing of process thereafter
on a private complaint may not be correct, yet the two complaints
as originally filed can still be pursued – Therefore, the two
complaints reinstated in their original form so that they may be
proceeded further, following the drill of s.195 and s.340 of Cr.PC.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is important to understand the difference
between the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. Where the facts mentioned in
a complaint attracts the provisions of Section 191 to 193 of the
IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC applies. What is important
is that once these sections of the IPC are attracted, the offence
should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to,
any proceeding in any Court. Thus, what is clear is that the offence
punishable under these sections does not have to be committed
only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence
alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in
any Court. [Para 19][1100-C-E]
2. Contrasted with Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(ii

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