LexMAHESH CHAND SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 922 A MAHESH CHAND SHARMA -+ v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2009) B AUGUST 28,. 2009 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 195(1)(b)(ii) - Interpretation of - Vendee purchased land from vendor and c took possession - Accused in collusion with Area Lekhpal got the said property mutated in their names - Registration of case against accused ulss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B /PC - High Court quashing the said proceedings in view of bar of s. 195 and also the order passed uls. 156(3) Cr.P.C. to ,_, ·~ D investigate the matter - Sustainability of - Held: Under s:- ..,.. 195(1)(b)(ii) prosecution is for offences ulss. 463, 471, 475 and 476, committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court - There was non-application of law with regard to E provisions contained in s. 195 - Offence committed by accused in collusion with Area Lekhpal was not in relation to court proceedings - It was behind the back of vendee - Also, High Court erred in resorting to s. 340 CrPC - Relief uls. 482 F CrPC could not be granted - Thus, order of High Court not sustainable and is set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B. Appellant-vendee purchased certain land from vendor and was handed over the possession of the G same. Respondent nos.2, 3 and 4-accused in collusion with the Area Lekhpal got the said property mutated in their names. Appellant alleged commission of offence punishable u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. H 922 ' ,. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. & 923 ORS . . -t- Magistrate passed. an order ·u/s. 156(3) Cr.P .C. to A investigate the matter. A case was-r.e_gistered against the accused. Thereafter, accused filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.P .C. for quashing the charge sheet. Single Judge of High Court quashed the proceedings of the case in view of the bar of s. 195 Cr.P.C. and allowed the petition u/s. 482 of B the Code and also quashed the order passed u/s. 156(3) ~ Cr.P.C. to investigate the case. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Cr.P.C. C contemplates a situation where offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. [Para 29] [935-0-E] D 2.1. On going through the impugned order passed by Single Judge of High Court, it is found that there has been total non-application of law with regard to provision contained in section 195 .of Cr.P.C. The order passed by the Single Judge cannot be sustained in law. Single E Judge proceeded on absolutely wrong facts and applied incorrect principles of law. It completely lost sight of the f- fact that the offence committed by accused in collusion with Area Lekhpal was not in relation to court I proceedings. It was in any case behind the back of the ! F appellant and as soon as he came to know with regard to the illegal designs of the accused he lodged a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. [Paras 22, 26, 27 and 28) [929-D; 935-A-E] ~ 2.2. Single Judge further committed a gross error in resorting to Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. as provisions qf the said Section can be invoked only when it is established that offence of forgery had already been G H 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A committed. In any case, accused had miserably failed for -+ grant of any relief under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The limit of exercising jurisdiction conferred on the Court under Sectio·n 482 of the Cr.P .C is well defined and by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that petition B filed by accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C had fulfilled the requirement as contemplated in this Section. Thus the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set ~· aside and quashed. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the Criminal Complaint filed by appellant against the c accused. [Paras 30, 31and 32] (935-E-H; 936-A-B] Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. 1998 (2) SCC 493; Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370, relied Qn. ~ D Case Law Reference: ..... 1998 (2) sec 493 Relied on. Para 24 (2005) 4 sec 370 Relied on. Para 25 E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2009. From the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.