SUSHIL KUMAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 182 · Decided: 08-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SUSHIL KUMAR AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Power of Magistrate to frame charges under Sections 471 and 
474, Cr. P.C. in the absence of a complaint from a Civil Court-Bar 
of section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr. P.C. thereon. 
,._ 
C 
The alli>ellant Sushil Kumar filed a Civil Suit against the wife of 
respondenttJo. 2 and obtained, on the strength of a copy of a deed of 
partnership, a temporary injunction restraining the wife and her 
husband ftom interfering with the possession of some property. 
Thereupon the respondent No. 2 lodged a report with the police 
against the appellants, alleging that the partnership deed was a forged 
0 one and, accordingly, the appellants had committed offences punish· 
able under ss. 465, 468, 471, 474, 1208 and 420, I.P.C. The magis· 
trate framed charges against the appellants under ss. 465, 468, 1208 
and 420, I.P.C., but refrained from framing charges under ss. 471 & 
474, I.P.C., on the ground that, in the absence of a complaint from 
the Civil Court, he could not take cognizance under those sections. 
E 
On a revision preferred by the State, the Additional Sessions 
Judge upheld the order of the magistrate. The respondent No. 2 then 
moved the High Court under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
1973, which reversed the decision, holding that as the document was 
not forged during the period it was in Court Custody, the bar of s. 
F 
195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was not attracted, and directed the magistrate to 
frame fresh charges. The appellants thereupon appealed to this Court 
by special leave against the order of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal and confirming the direction of the High 
Court but on a different ground, the Court, 
-1 
j 
1
G 
.-~ 
HELD: The. original document, the deed of partnership, was 
not filed in the Civil Court and a temporary injunction was obtained 
_.+ 
on the strength of its copy. The reasoning given by the High Court 
in support of its judg:nent is not correct but that does not help 
the appellants. The Privy Council in Sanmukhsingh v. The King, 
H [1949] L.R. 77 I.A. 7, observed that by production of a copy of the 
182 
SUSHIL KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA (SHARMA, J.] 
183 
> 
' 
allegedly forged document, it cannot be said that the document itself A 
was given in evidence. This view accords with the plain grammatical 
meaning of the words and is also supported by the practical common 
sense, 11840, F-G) 
I 
Since the document alleged to have been forged in the case was 
not produced in the Court, the provisions of section 195(l)(b)(ii) of 
B 
the Code of Criminal Procedure have no ap~lication. The High 
Court's direction is confirmed but on a different ground, as indi-
cated, I 184G-H) 
Sanmukhsingh v. The King, 119491 L.R, 77 1,A, 7 and Budhu 
Ram v, State of Rajasthan, 11963) 3 S.C.R. 376, referred to. 
c 
)... 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 617 of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.1987 of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 5338-M of 1986. 
D 
Prem Malhotra for the Appellants. 
t 
S.C. Mohanta, C.V.S. Rao, A.K. Goel, and 8.P. Singh for the 
Respondents. 
E 
-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
I 
·" ' 
SHARMA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of 
.. \_the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversing the order of the 
Judicial Magistrate, Hissar refusing to frame charges against the 
}-
appellants under ss. 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. The 
F 
dispute between the parties arose out of a difference between them in 
connection with a partnership business. The appellant Sushi! Kumar 
filed a civil suit against Smt. Shakuntala Devi, wife of Inder Prakash, 
respondent No. 2. Relying upon a copy of a deed of partnership, he 
+ , 
obtained a temporary in junction restraining her and her husband 
from interfering with the possession of a certain property. The 
G 
\ 
respondent No. 2, thereupon, lodged a report with the police against 
!--
the appellants alleging that the partnership deed was a forged one 
and that they being parties to the forgery had committed offences 
punishable under ss. 465, 468, 471, 474, 120B and 420 !PC. A challan 
was submitted and the learned Magistrate framed charges against the 
appellants under ss. 465, 468, 120B and 420 !PC, but refrained from 
H 
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A framing any charge under ss. 471 and 474 !PC holding that he could 
not take cogniza
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.