LexSURJIT SINGH AND ORS. versus BALBIR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. v. BALBIR SINGH FEBRUARY 29, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 195 and 340. C Offences covered by Section 195-Private complaint in respect of~urisdiction to take congnisance of-Bar in respect of-Filing of civil suit by appellants-Alleged fabrication of agreement and forging of signatures by appellant-Private complaint by respondents-Application for quashing of complaint by appellant-<iround that bar enacted by section 195 was ap- D plicable--Rejection of application by Trial Court and First Appellate Court-High Court directing Magistrate to proceed with trial-Appeal-Held bar of section 195(1)(b)(ii) was not attracted as cognizance of private com- plaint had already been taken by the Court before the alleged forged document was filed in the Civil Court-High Court was right in directing the Trial Court to proceed with trial-Purpose and object of creating bar against cognizance E of private complaint explained. Gopal Krishna Menon & Anr. v. D. Raja Reddy & Anr., [1983] 3 SCR 836; Patel Laljibhai and Somabhai v. State of Gujara4 [1971] Supp. SCR 834; Budh Ram v. State of Rajasthan, [1963] 3 SCR 376 and Sushi/ Kumar F v. State of Haryana, AIR (1988) SC 419, referred to. Sanmukhsingh v. The King, AIR (1950) PC 31, approved. Kushalpal Singh 's case !LR (1953) All. 804, cited. G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : . Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.86 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 1918-M of 1985. H S. Markandaya and R.S. Suri Adv. (NP) for the Appellants. 70 • •• .. SURJIT SINGH v. BALBIR SINGH 71 Mrs. Kawaljit Kochhar, J.D. Jain for the Respondents. Y.B. Sinha, Mrs. Kawaljit Kochhar and J.D. Jain for the Respon- dents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Question of law referred to this Bench is : whether the criminal Court is debarred from proceeding with the private complaint laid against the appellants on June 13, 1983 for offences punishable under section 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC']? The respondent had laid A B the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120:B, IPC with the allegations that the appellants had C conspired and fabricated an agreement dated July 26, 1978 and forged the signature of Smt. Dalip Kaur and on the basis thereof they attempted to claim retention of th.e possession of the remaining part of the house. The Magistrate, Amritsar had examined witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, the 'Code'] and ordered issue D of process summoning the appellants to appear on September 27, 1983. It would appear that the appellants filed civil suit for an injunction to restrajn Dalip Kaur from interfering with the possession of appellants 1 to 3 and he produced the agreement dated 21.2.1984 which was said to have been executed and signed by Dalip Kaur. Thereafter, the appellants filed an E application to quash the complaint on the ground of bar under section 195 of the Code. The Magistrate and on revision the Sessions Judge dismissed the same. When the revision was filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, on a question oflaw ultimately the matter was referred to Full Bench which had answered the question against the appellants and remitted the matter to the referring Judge. The learned single J udgc in the F impugned order dated August 4, 1986 has dismissed the revision. Thus this appeal by special leave. The only question is : whether the Magistrate, !st class at Amirtsar is devoid of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Shri Markan- daya, learned counsel for the appellants placing strong reliance on the G judgments of this Court in Gopal Krishna Menon & Anr. v. D. Raja Reddy & Anr., (1983] 3 SCR 836 and Patel Laljibhai and Somabhai v. State of Gujarat; (1971] Supp. SCR 834 contended that once the document has been produced before the Court, it is the civil Court that has seisin of the matter. It alone or an officer on its behalf has to lay tlie complaint in writing. The H 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R. A private complaint laid by the respondent is not maintainable. The criminal Court, therefore, cannot proceed with the trial. With a view to appreciate the contention it is necessary to reiterate the scope of Section 195 of the Code w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.