Dr. Sanjukta Nanda vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4741 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.462 of 2015
                            ----

1. Dr. Sanjukta Nanda

2. Dr. Bramha Nanda @ Dr. Brahma Nanda .... .... Appellants Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Dipanwita Sarkar .... .... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Appellants           : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State                : Mr. A.P. Topno, A.P.P.
For the Respondent No.2      : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv.
                     ----
15/Dated: 28th November, 2022

       Heard the parties.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.06.2015 passed by learned District Consumer Forum, West Singhbhum in C.C. No.16 of 2013, directing its Bench Clerk to lodge a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa for the offence under Sections 466 and 466/120 of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that a complaint regarding medical negligence has been filed before District Consumer Forum, which has been numbered as Complaint Case No.16 of 2013. It further appears that before District Consumer Forum, after filing of the aforesaid complaint, a complaint has been made by the complainant stating that forged documents has been prepared in the name of State Consumer Commission, showing that complaint petition was pending being C.C. Case No.916 of 2014 before State Consumer Commission wherein it has been mentioned that mutual settlement has been arrived between the parties. This document bears signature of both the parties. Further, it has been shown that notice has been issued on 18.01.2014 by the State Commission, directing the complainant to appear before the State Commission for compromise otherwise the matter will be dropped. It further appears that both alleged compromise and notice are forged documents as because no case is pending before the State Commission. It further appears that there is no dispute that alleged forged documents have been brought on record by the complainant and not by the present appellants.

Argument has been advanced by the counsel for the appellants by referring to Section 340 Cr.P.C. that no offence is made out under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and as such, alleged complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not permissible. For this purpose, he has relied upon judgments reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. and A.I.R. 2020 SC 4247 in the case of M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. and it has been submitted that the document even if presumed to be prepared, but it has not been produced in the proceeding by the present appellants rather it has been produced by the complainant and as such, invoking jurisdiction of Section 340 Cr.P.C. is bad in law. On the above basis, the impugned order is fit to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. and counsel for the respondent No.2 have supported the impugned order and it has been submitted that forged documents have been prepared and shown before the District Consumer Forum and further, forgery has been committed as ingredients of Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code is present and, therefore, order of the District Consumer Forum is maintainable.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that said forged document was in possession of the complainant and it has been produced before the forum by her. Thus, document was neither in the possession of the present appellants nor it has been produced by them. Further, no forgery has been committed with regard to pending proceeding and even if, it is presumed that the forged document has been produced, it has not been produced by the present appellants before the District Consumer Forum and thus, invoking jurisdiction of Section 340 Cr.P.C. by District Consumer Forum was beyond jurisdiction.

Since the impugned order has been passed by assuming the jurisdiction of Section 340 Cr.P.C., although the Forum has no power to pass such order, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order dated 27.06.2015 is hereby set aside and this Criminal appeal is allowed.

The District Consumer Forum, West Singhbhum is requested to proceed with pending proceeding being C.C. No.16 of 2013 and conclude the same as early as possible.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/-