The Allahabad High Court reiterated held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. bars registration of FIR even in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court and thereafter, it has been filed in judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court.
Brief Facts:
The present revision petition was filed challenging an order of the trial court rejecting the revisionist's plea under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking direction for the SHO to register and investigate a criminal case against the opposing parties for fraud and forgery.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist submitted that from the averments made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and affidavit filed in support thereof, prima facie offence under Sections 420, 467, 478 I.P.C. was made out against the opposite party No.2, but without considering the facts and evidence given therein, Magistrate concerned illegally rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the father of the revisionist and opposite party No.2 was a Government Employee and had four sons and all three sons got good Government Service/Jobs since opposite party No.2 was looking after him after retirement of father of the revisionist and opposite party No.2, who executed registered will in his favour and the aforesaid will has not been cancelled or set aside by any Court.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that Section 195 (I) (b) bars the Court from taking cognizance of an offence, in which, forgery has been committed in a document filed in a case pending in any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court if such forgery has been made in any Court proceedings, then the concerned Court should file a complaint as provided under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Further, the court referred to the averments made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and stated that alleged forgery in the affidavit and will deed was not done while they had already been filed in the case pending in different Courts and the alleged false affidavit or forged document were prepared outside the Court and same has been filed in the judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court and thus the bar against taking cognizance of a criminal case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances given in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
The court referred to the decision in the case of Sachida Nand Singh and stated that the Magistrate has wrongly held that Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. bars registration of FIR even in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court and thereafter, it has been filed in judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court.
The court stated that apart from this Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., imposes no bar on registration of a criminal case relating to such forged documents, it merely bars that the Magistrate shall not take cognizance of an offence regarding such forged document unless the Court, in which, forgery has been committed, filed a complaint case in accordance with the provision of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has not discussed or given any other reason for rejecting the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and also has not considered the other point raised in the application for registering a criminal case regarding alleged forged affidavit and false will.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: Vishwanath vs State of U.P. and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surendra Singh
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 185 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ganesh Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Alok Singh, G.A., Phool Chandra Singh, Sumitra Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
