[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
1 MCRC-34405-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 3 rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34405 of 2022
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri APS Tomar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the
petitioner for quashment of the impugned committal order dated 02/07/2022
passed in Criminal Case No.5674 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Gwalior as well as for quashing the entire proceedings of the said
case.
Short facts of the case are that the accused/Anil Kumar Gupta had filed
a complaint against Anil Kumar Kushwaha under Sections 294, 506 Part II,
504 of the IPC and Section 43 read with Section 38(1) of the M.P. Place
Control Act. After investigation, cognizance was taken and the case was
registered under Section 43 read with Section 38(1) of the M.P. Place
Control Act as Case No. 2444/11. In that case, on 10.01.2012 charges were
framed and the matter was fixed for the complainant's evidence. On
20.03.2012 Anil Kumar Gupta (present petitioner) appeared for evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
2 MCRC-34405-2022
After the examination-in-chief, cross-examination began. During cross-
examination, when documents submitted in the police investigation were
sought to be exhibited and objection was taken that they were photocopies,
the court below adjourned the cross-examination. Anil Kumar Gupta (present
petitioner) produced the second copy of the application submitted to the
police regarding the incident as Exhibit P-1, the electricity bill of the
accused's commercial meter as Exhibit P-2, and a certified copy of the
judgment passed against the accused. When Anil Kumar Gupta (present
petitioner) signed Exhibit P-1 (the second copy of the application submitted
to the police) after giving his evidence in the courtroom of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, Advocate Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal
brought this fact to the notice of the court. On being asked, the accused
admitted that when the document Exhibit P-1 was produced, it did not bear
his signature, and he had mistakenly signed it after giving evidence. This fact
was recorded by the court below in the order sheet dated 20.03.2012. Thus,
in Case No.2444/11 titled Anil Kumar Gupta vs. Anil Kushwah, Anil Kumar
Gupta (present petitioner) dishonestly and fraudulently signed Exhibit P-1
after giving evidence, thereby committing forgery of a false document,
which was done with the intention to deceive.
The complainant requested the Court of JMFC, Gwalior to take action
against Anil Kumar Gupta(present petitioner). However, the court below
only warned (present petitioner) and discharged him without taking
cognizance. Against this, the applicant filed a revision. The Revisional Court
set aside the subordinate court's order dated 20.03.2012 and passed an order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
3 MCRC-34405-2022
directing an inquiry under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C.
regarding the dishonest and fraudulent signing on Exhibit P-1 by (present
petitioner) after giving evidence. Therefore, cognizance was sought against
the accused. In support of the application, the complainant submitted
certified copies of the order dated 17.01.2013 in Criminal Revision No.
426/12 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior; the certified
copy of the order sheet dated 20.03.2012 of this Court; and the certified copy
of Criminal Revision No. 84/2013 of the Hon'ble High Court, Gwalior
Bench.
In his reply, the accused Anil Kumar Gupta (present petitioner) denied
the allegations and stated that none of the offences described under Section
195 Cr.P.C. had been committed, nor does any offence arise against him. He
submitted that he did not sign Exhibit P-1 with any intention to hide it from
anyone or cause criminal harm to anyone. No alterations were made in
Exhibit P-1. He stated that the signature was made inadvertently in open
court, in the presence of the court, the applicant, and the applicant's counsel,
after the document was marked as an exhibit. He contended that merely
signing Exhibit P-1 does not constitute any criminal act or offence. He did
not derive any illegal advantage, nor did anyone suffer loss, nor is any malice
evident on his part. Hence, there is no justification for initiating proceedings
under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
The learned Court, after hearing the parties, had passed the impugned
order dated 02.07.2022 as under:
"4. करण के अवलोकन से पाया क दनांक 20.03.2012
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
4 MCRC-34405-2022
को समय 01:30 बजे करण कं. 2444/11 उ वान अिनल गु ा व०
अिनल कुशवाह के मामले म सा ी अिनल कुमार गु ा का मु य
पर ण लेखब कया गया तथा आरोपी अिधव ा का द तावेज
तुत करने का िनवेदन वीकार कया जाकर ितपर ण रोका
गया। इसी बीच अिनल कुशवाह के अिधव ा ारा यायालय का
इस ओर यान आकृ कराया क दश पी 1 का द तावेज
यायालय म तुत करते समय उस पर ह ता र नह ं थे। इस
संबंध म आरोपी अिनल गु ा को बताए जाने पर उसके ारा यह
वीकार कया गया क उस पर ह ता र नह ं थे, ु टवश उसके
ारा सा य उपरांत ह ता र कर दए गए ह। उ त य को आरोपी
अिनल गु ा ारा अपने जवाब म वीकार कया गया है । यहां
वचारणीय यह है क या आरोपी अिनल गु ा ारा छल व
कूटरचना करने के आशय से दश पी 1 के द तावेज पर ह ता र
कए गए। इस संबंध म अनावेदक क ओर से यह तक तुत कया
गया है क उ द तावेज पर भूलवश उसके ारा ह ता र कर दए
गए ह तथा दश पी 1 का द तावेज वयं अनावेदक अिनल गु ा
ारा अपने ह तलेख म िलखा गया है और उ द तावेज मू यवान
ितभूित क ण
े ी म नह ं आता है । इस संबंध म अिभयु क ओर
से तुत माननीय उ चतम यायालय का िनणय 2001 (9)
एस.सी.सी. 742 बी. के. गु ा बनाम दामोदर एच बजाज तुत
कया है , जो करण क प र थितय पर लागू नह ं होता है । इसके
अलावा उ ह ने माननीय उ च यायालय ारा पा रत िनणय 2009
सी.आर.एल.जे. पेज 63 रण वजय िसंह बनाम टे ट ऑफ झारखंड
वअ य तुत कया है , जसम माननीय उ च यायालय ने य
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
5 MCRC-34405-2022
कया है क अ वेषण अिधकार ारा उसके कथन म अिभयु के
नाम म सुधार करना कूटरचना नह ं है , ले कन करण म अिभयु
के ारा यायालय के करण के द तावेज म जस पर ह ता र
नह ं थे, उस पर ह ता र कर दए। अतः दोन प र थ यां िभ न
ह। इसके अलावा अिभयु के ारा माननीय उ च यायालय ारा
पा रत िनणय 2004 सी.आर.एल.जे. पेज 222 पी.के. दामोदरन
बनाम पी.के. भारथन तुत कया है , जसम माननीय उ च
यायालय ारा य कया क केवल द तावेज क तु से यह
सा बत नह ं होता क कूटरचना हुई है । चू ं क, करण किमटल के
तर पर है और अभी इस यायालय को केवल किमटल पर वचार
करना है न क गुणदोष के आधार पर कोई आदे श पा रत करना है ।
इसिलए उ िनणय भी करण क प र थितय पर लागू नह ं
होता है । अतः अिभयु को उ सभी िनणय का लाभ दान नह ं
कया जा सकता।
5. तुत दश पी 1 के द तावेज के अवलोकन से यह
दिशत होता है क दश पी 1 का द तावेज थाना भार पुिलस
चौक वािलयर को क गई िशकायत क पावती है । उ द तावेज
करण के त य को सा बत करने के उ े य से यायालय म
तुत कया गया था तथा उ द तावेज पर तुत करते समय
अिनल कुमार गु ा के ह ता र नह ं थे, कंतु अिनल कुमार गु ा
ारा उ दश पी के द तावेज पर ह ता र सा य म ा होने के
उपरांत कए गए ह जो क यायालय के द तावेज म कूटरचना क
ण
े ी म कया गया काय है । चू ं क, यायालय म कोई द तावेज
तुत करने के उपरांत उस पर कोई भी प कार उस पर कुछ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
6 MCRC-34405-2022
अं कत नह ं कर सकता। उ द तावेज सा क मू य का द तावेज
है जो क करण म घटना से संबंिधत भवन वामी अिनल कुशवाह
के बजली कने शन को काट दे ने के संबंध म उसके व
िशकायत है , जससे उ िशकायत के त य को यायालय म
सा बत करने के उददे य से तुत कया गया है अथात ् उ
द तावेज सा य क मू यवान द तावेज है तथा यह त य का
है क िशकायत पर अिनल कुमार गु ा के ह ता र न होने से
यह त य सा बत/नासा बत करने का वषय हो सकता है क उ
िशकायत अिनल कुमार गु ा ारा नह ं क गई, कंतु य द उस पर
अिनल कुमार गु ा के ह ता र ह तब अिनल कुमार गु ा इस त य
का लाभउठा सकता है क वह िशकायत उसके ारा क गई। इस
कार दश पी 1 पर कए हुए ह ता र लाभ लेने के उददे य से
कए गए ह अतः अिनल कुमार गु ा का यह त य वीकार यो य
नह ं है क उसक ओर से भूलवश दश पी के द तावेज पर
ह ता र कए गए थे और अिनल कुमार गु ा ारा दश पी के
द तावेज पर ह ता र कया जाना यायालय के अिभलेख म
कूटरचना कए जाने का अपराध ग ठत करता है और इस कार
धारा 466 व 468 भा०दं ० सं० के अंतग दं डनीय अपराध कया
जाना थम या दिशत होता है । जांच से थम या मामला
अ गत धारा 195(1)(251)(1) सहप ठत धारा 340 दं सं पाये जाने
से आरोपी अिनल कुमार गु ा के व करण ववेचना म िलया
गया। ववेचना उपरांत अिभयु के व प रवाद प अंतगत
धारा 195(1)(1)(1) सहप ठत धारा 340 दं सं कया गया।"
Aggrived by the aforesaid order, the present petition has been filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
7 MCRC-34405-2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court
that the applicant, Anil Kumar Gupta, has been falsely implicated in the
present proceedings arising out of the order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, whereby the learned Magistrate committed
the case to the Court of Sessions under Sections 466 and 468 IPC, read with
Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 Cr.P.C. The alleged signature on Exhibit P-1 was
not made with any criminal intention, nor with any intention to fabricate,
alter, or forge any court record. The signature was made in open court, in the
presence of the learned magistrate, the complainant, and his counsel,
immediately after the document was exhibited, and the same was done
inadvertently and without any mala fide intention. The essential ingredients
of "forgery" and "making of a false document" are wholly absent. The
document (Exhibit P-1) was originally written by the applicant in his own
handwriting. No alteration, addition, interpolation, or manipulation was
made in the contents of the document. The document is not a valuable
security, nor does it create, extinguish, or transfer any legal right.
It is further submitted that under Section 340 Cr.P.C., an inquiry can
be conducted only in respect of the offences described under Section 195(1)
(b) Cr.P.C., and cognizance can also be taken only for such offences. Section
195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. covers offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205
to 211, 228, 463, 471, 475 and 476 IPC. The complaint does not disclose any
of these offences, nor was cognizance sought for them. Instead, cognizance
was sought only for offences under Sections 466 and 468 IPC, which
indisputably do not fall within the ambit of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
8 MCRC-34405-2022
Therefore, the court below had no jurisdiction to pass a committal order
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in relation to such offences, and the impugned
order is liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction and non-application of
mind.
It is further submitted that the committal order passed against the
petitioner is unsustainable because, even on a prima facie reading of the
complaint and accompanying documents, no offence under Sections 466 or
468 IPC is made out. The complaint itself is meritless and deserves to be
rejected. At the time when Exhibit P-1 was presented before the trial court
and marked as an exhibit, the petitioner had inadvertently signed it in open
court. This act does not constitute any offence under Sections 466 or 468
IPC. The basis relied upon by the court below for forwarding the complaint
does not fall within the definition of forgery under Sections 466 or 468 IPC.
The handwritten report marked as Exhibit P-1 is entirely in the petitioner's
own handwriting and is not a valuable security. Even if for the sake of
argument it is assumed that the signature was put later, the essential character
of the document does not change. Mere affixing of a signature does not
amount to making a forged document, nor does it cause any wrongful loss to
the opposite party. The report was admissible as evidence even without a
signature because it was in the applicant's own handwriting. No alteration,
correction, cutting, overwriting, or manipulation has been made in the
document. Hence, the mere presence of a signature does not constitute an
offence under Sections 466 or 468 IPC, and the impugned committal order is
liable to be set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
9 MCRC-34405-2022
It is further submitted that the trial court passed the committal order
without having the original documents before it and the original handwritten
police report (Exhibit P-1) and other relevant documents were not attached,
and only photocopies were available. Photocopies are neither admissible in
evidence nor can they form the basis of a committal order. The order-sheet
dated 13.09.2017 reflects this procedural irregularity, and on this ground also
the impugned order is illegal. In the original Case No. 2444/11, the trial
court had never held Exhibit P-1 to be a forged document. Nor did the
judgment dated 27.10.2017 in the matter of Anil Kumar Gupta v. Anil
Kushwah record any finding that Exhibit P-1 was tampered with or used for
any illegal advantage. In the absence of such findings in the main judgment,
no proceedings can be initiated against the applicant under Section 340
Cr.P.C., and no prosecution can be maintained.
It is also submitted that under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the trial court is
required to conduct a preliminary inquiry before initiating proceedings.
However, no proper inquiry was conducted in the present case, nor was the
petitioner given an opportunity to lead evidence or to be heard appropriately.
Consequently, the entire process, including the order and the complaint, is
illegal and deserves to be quashed.
It is further submitted that the complaint was forwarded by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, although no incident took place before him
and he was not posted in the concerned court at the relevant time. Thus, the
complaint is without jurisdiction. The said Magistrate had no authority to
forward any complaint against the applicant, nor to authorize the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
10 MCRC-34405-2022
Enforcement Clerk, Shri Neeraj Dubey, for further proceedings, particularly
when the said clerk was also not posted in the concerned court at the time of
the alleged incident. Hence, the complaint is without legal sanction.
The applicant derived no benefit--either legal or factual--by signing
Exhibit P-1 at the time of evidence. Conversely, no wrongful loss was caused
to any party. Hence, the mandatory ingredients of Sections 466 and 468 IPC,
such as intent to cause damage, intent to deceive, intent to commit fraud, or
intent to use the forged document for wrongful gain, are completely absent.
The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the well-settled law laid down by
various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere presentation
of a document does not amount to forgery, mere signing of a document
already on record does not amount to "making a false document," and an
inadvertent or bona fide mistake made during judicial proceedings cannot
give rise to criminal prosecution under Sections 466 or 468 IPC. The
decisions relied upon by the applicant--including B.K. Gupta v. Damodar H.
Bajaj (2001) 9 SCC 742, Ranvijay Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2009 CRLJ
63, and P.K. Damodaran v. P.K. Bharathan, 2004 CRLJ 222--were
summarily brushed aside without proper judicial consideration.
Section 195 Cr.P.C. creates a strict bar on prosecution for offences
relating to documents produced in court proceedings. Such prosecution can
be initiated only when the court itself forms a clear opinion that an offence
appears to have been committed and that it is expedient in the interest of
justice to initiate prosecution. In the present case, the order initiating
proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. suffers from non-application of mind,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
11 MCRC-34405-2022
because the act complained of was admitted to be inadvertent, there was no
finding of deliberate intent, and the order nowhere records why prosecution
is "necessary in the interest of justice."
The Revisional Court's observations have also been misinterpreted by
the learned Magistrate, as the Revisional Court never directed that
prosecution must necessarily follow; it merely asked for an inquiry. The
present committal order mechanically assumes guilt without any independent
satisfaction. The impugned committal order dated 02.07.2022 is therefore
bad in law, arbitrary, beyond jurisdiction, and suffers from serious
procedural irregularities. The learned Magistrate acted as if conducting a full-
fledged trial, whereas at the stage of committal only a prima facie and
cautious scrutiny is permitted. Continuation of the criminal proceedings
amounts to an abuse of process of law, as the applicant is being dragged into
an unwarranted trial for an act which was purely unintentional and trivial in
nature, and which does not satisfy the legal requirements of any cognizable
offence.
In light of the above, it is submitted that the impugned committal order
is liable to be quashed, the complaint filed against the applicant deserves to
be dismissed, and the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant be set
aside in the interest of justice.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that
the present petition is without merit, as the committal order dated 02.07.2022
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, is in
accordance with law, as a prima facie case under Sections 466 and 468 IPC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
12 MCRC-34405-2022
read with Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 Cr.P.C. has been made out against the
petitioner. The petitioner has admitted to signing Exhibit P-1, and the
allegation of forgery or fabrication of the document is a matter for trial. The
learned Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction and applied mind in forwarding
the complaint to the Court of Sessions, and no illegality or procedural
irregularity exists to warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The
petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.
Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the
counsel for the parties, and the material on record, this Court finds that the
offences alleged against the petitioner under Sections 466 and 468 IPC do
not fall within the ambit of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., which specifically
restricts the court from taking cognizance of certain offences except through
proper inquiry, as the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court
of Sessions mechanically, without proper application of mind or due
consideration of the statutory limitations, thereby exceeding the limits of his
jurisdiction.
The material evidence, including Exhibit P-1, clearly demonstrates that
the document in question was written in the petitioner's own handwriting.
The signatures alleged to have been affixed were done inadvertently, in open
court, in the presence of the magistrate, the complainant, and his counsel,
without any intent to forge, fabricate, or cause wrongful loss. No prima facie
case of forgery or falsification under Sections 466 or 468 IPC is made out.
There is no evidence to show that the petitioner derived any wrongful benefit
or caused any damage to any person, nor is there any intention to deceive.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31396
13 MCRC-34405-2022
Mere affixing of a signature under such circumstances does not constitute
"making of a false document" or forgery under Sections 466 or 468 IPC. No
wrongful gain or loss has been caused to any person, and no criminal intent
is apparent. Further, the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to lead
evidence or to be heard at the stage of committal, and the original documents
were not before the trial court; only photocopies were available. This
violates the principles of natural justice and renders the committal order
legally untenable.
In view of the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that the impugned
committal order is illegal, arbitrary, and beyond the powers of the
subordinate court. In exercise of the inherent powers conferred under Section
482 Cr.P.C., this Court deems it appropriate to intervene to prevent
miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the committal order dated 02.07.2022
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, is hereby
quashed, and the complaint filed against the petitioner is set aside. All
proceedings arising therefrom shall stand abated. No order as to costs.
The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
