SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 07-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
319
SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 855 of 2019)
MAY 07, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.340 – In a sexual
harassment case against the appellants, the appellants filed
anticipatory bail applications along with Vakalatnama before the
Madurai High Court – While filing the Vakalatnama, it was stated
therein that it was signed by appellants before their counsel on
17.08.2016 at Madurai – Challenging the maintainability of bail
petition and Vakalatnama, the respondent-State filed preliminary
objection and submitted that the Vakalatnama bore signature dated
18.08.2016, however, the first appellant had left for Singapore from
New Delhi on 17.08.2016 at 23.15 hours and third appellant had
left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016 at 9.30 AM –
High Court directed the appellants to appear before the Court on
29.08.2016 and to give their explanation with regard to said
preliminary objection – Accordingly appellants appeared and stated
that the date mentioned in the Vakalatnama was an inadvertent
mistake – High Court found the explanation unsatisfactory and
held that the document appeared to be forged and was signed and
executed outside Madurai and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to
lodge the complaint against the appellants – Accordingly, complaint
was lodged against the appellants under ss.193, 466, 468 and 471
IPC – Aggrieved appellants filed instant appeals – Held: There could
be no two views about the proposition that even if forgery was
committed outside the precincts of the court and long before its
production in the court, it would also be treated as one affecting
the administration of justice – But in the instant case, the
Vakalatnama filed by the appellants seeking anticipatory bail could
not be said to be a forged document – Appellants had admitted
their signatures in the Vakalatnama and had taken plea that it was
mistakenly recorded that it was signed on 18.08.2016 at Madurai –
Explanation tendered by the appellants appeared plausible – Fraud
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 319
319
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
implies intentional deception aimed of achieving some wrongful gain
or causing wrongful loss or injury to another – Intention being the
mens rea is the essential ingredient to hold that a fraud has been
played upon the court – High Court was not justified in terming the
said mistake or error as fraud – The direction to lodge criminal
complaint against the appellants is set aside – Penal Code, 1860 –
s.195(1)(b).
Penal Code, 1860: s.195(1)(b) – Prosecution under – Held:
Under s.340, the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedient
in the interest of justice and not in every case – Before proceeding
to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred
to in s.195(1)(b), the court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient in
the interest of justice” – The language in s.340 Cr.P.C. shows that
such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires
and not in every case – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.340.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 It is fairly well settled that before lodging of
the complaint, it is necessary that the court must be satisfied
that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the
complaint.  It is not necessary that the court must use the actual
words of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; but the court should record a finding
indicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of
justice that an enquiry should be made.  [Para 10] [325-G-H;
326-A]
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4
SCC 370 : [2005] 2 SCR 708 – relied on.
2. It appeared from the vakalatnama that appellants No.1
and 3 signed the vakalatnama in Madurai on 17.08.2016; but
actually the first appellant did not visit Madurai and left for
Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016 at 11.15 PM.  In the
affidavit filed by the appellants before the High Court, the first
appellant took the plea that it was a clerical error.  Appellant
No.1 stated that on 16.08.2016, she and her son-appellant No.2
signed the vakalatnama in New Delhi and that the same was signed
through appellant No.3 who was in Bengaluru.  It was stated that
after receiving the vakalatnama, appellant No.3 reached Madurai
on the same day evening by road and handed over the same to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
321
the lawyer and returned back to Bengaluru by road on the same
day and thereafte

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