LexRUGMINI AMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. versus V. NARAYANA REDDIAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
"! -t --1 RUGMINI AMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. A v. V. NARA YANA REDDIAR AND ORS. DECEMBER 13, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT P ASA YATAND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.195(1)(b)(ii), 340- Embargo contained in s.19 5 (I) (b )(ii)-Applicability and scope of- Held: s. l 95(1)(b)(iij applicable only when offences enumerated therein C had been committed with respect to document after it has been produced or given in evidence in 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 affects the administration of - 1 justice-However, Court is not bound to make a complaint in this D regard-Such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. The claim of respondent No.1 was that he was granted tenancy by one 'D' by executing lease agreement Ext.R-4(a). The appellant filed E writ petition challenging the validity of the said lease agreement. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit alongwith photocopy oflease agreement. Thereafter the appellant filed CMP contending that the purported lease agreement was a forged document and in support submitted the report of handwriting expert. The Single Judge of High F Court relied on the opinion given by handwriting expert and held that Ext.R-4( a) was fabricated and hence there was reasonable likelihood to establish the offences punishable under IPC and also directed the Registrar of the Court to make a complaint and send it to the Magistrate. G Against that order, writ appeal was filed. The High Court allowed the writ appeal holding that initiation of the proceedings under s.340 Cr.P .C. was without jurisdiction. Hence the present appeal. 587 H 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A The appellant contended that there is a conflict in view between the decision in *SachidaNand's case and **Surjit Singh 's case. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. S.190 Cr.P.C. provides that a Magistrate may take B cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, (b) upon a police report of such facts, and ( c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. S.195 Cr.P.C. is a sort of exception to this general provision and creates an C embargo upon the power of the court to take cognizance of certain types of offences enumerated therein. The procedure for filing a complaint by the court as contemplated by s.195(1) Cr.P.C. is given in s340 Cr.P .C. [Para 11] [592-G, H; 593-A-B] D 1.2. In view of the language used in s.340 Cr.P .C., the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in s.195(1 )(b ), as the section is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice". This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and E not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in s.195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude ofinjury suffered by F the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. [Para 11] [594-D-G] 1.3. S.195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with G 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 docmr.mt was in custodia legis. The High Court was, therefore, right in placing reliance onSachidaNand'scase. [Paras 11and13] (597-A-C] H .. ..... - RUG MINI AMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. v. V. NARA Y ANA 589 REDDIAR [PASAYAT, J.] *Sachida Nand Singh andAnr. v. State o/Bihar andAnr., AIR (1998) A SC 1121 and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005] 4 SCC 370, relied on. KS. Dass v. State of Kera/a, (1992) 2 KL T 358 and **Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Balbir Singh, (1996] 3 SCC 533, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 564 of 2002. From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.8.2000 of the High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.