Madras High Court
Dr.Victoria Manonmani Regina vs S.Kanniappan on 15 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.9081 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.9081 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.Nos.6016 & 6017 of 2025
1. Dr.Victoria Manonmani Regina
2. Dr.V.Ganesan ... Petitioners
Vs.
S.Kanniappan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to the
C.C.No.76 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Arakkonam and quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
For Respondent : Mr. M.Samuel Raja
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.76
of 2024, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Arakkonam, thereby taken cognizance for offences under Sections 167, 197
r/w. 193 of IPC, as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the respondent is that the first accused, none other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
than his own brother viz., Venkatesan fraudulently transferred their late mother
Raniammal’s property using a forged power of attorney and illegal sale deeds,
in collusion with a concubine, Medical Officers and Sub Registrars. He claims
that the life certificates were forged to register the documents after
Raniammal’s death and that the first accused withheld property documents to
block partitions. On receipt the said complaint, the trial Court has taken
cognizance in C.C.No.76 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections
167, 197 r/w 193 of IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners are arrayed as A8 & A9 in the complaint lodged by the
respondent. They are public servants, working as Doctors in the government
hospital. According to the respondent, the other accused persons are the family
members of the respondent and they had fabricated the life certificate as if
issued by the petitioners. The specific case of the respondent is that after
obtaining the life certificates, they removed the photograph and fixed the
deceased person’s photograph and proceeded with the sale on the strength of
the power of attorney. He further submitted that ingredients for the offences
under Sections 167, 197 r/w. 193 of IPC are not at all made out as against the
petitioners. The trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance for the offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
under Section 193 of IPC on the private complaint lodged by the respondent.
However, the trial Court had taken cognizance straight away without any prior
sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
137, 197 r/w. 193 of IPC. In support of his contention he also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2019) 3 SCC 318
in the case of Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar and ors, which
held that, the private complaints are absolutely barred in relation to an offence
said to have been committed under Section 193 of IPC and that the procedures
prescribed under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., are mandatory.
4. Per contra, the respondent filed counter and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent filed a private
complaint as against the family members as well as the public officials. In fact,
the complaint was returned with an endorsement requiring prior sanction under
Section 197 Cr.P.C., to proceed against the public servants. As per the
directions, the respondent submitted representation along with supporting
documents to the competent authority viz., the Joint Director of Health
Services. The said authority had conducted detailed enquiry and concluded that
the petitioners had issued certificates without verifying the original documents
and however refused to sanction prosecute. The District Registrar failed to act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
upon the representation submitted by the respondent. Therefore, it was also
challenged before this Court in W.P.1221 of 2023 and it is pending for
adjudication.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed on record.
6. There are totally 12 accused in which the petitioners are arrayed as
A8 and A9. They are working as Doctors in the Government Hospital,
Arakkonam, Ranipet District, as Civil Surgeon and Assistant Medical Officer
respectively. The respondent lodged complaint and the specific allegation as
against the petitioners is that, one Raniammal died intestate on 04.04.2016 and
one Venkatesan was maintaining her property. In order to grab the entire
property, the said Venkatesan had executed settlement deed in favour of his
counter party through the Power of Attorney dated 04.12.2013 vide document
No.9509 of 2013, even after the death of the said Raniammal. Further the said
Venkatesan also executed sale deed in respect of the other properties without
the consent of other legal heirs of the said Raniammal. He obtained life
certificates from the petitioners for execution of settlement deeds as well as the
sale deeds. The petitioners without even verifying the death of the person,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
issued the life certificate. On the strength of the said life certificate, the said
Venkatesan executed the settlement deed as well as the sale deeds.
7. On perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent, it is
revealed that the life certificate of the Raniammal has been issued by the eighth
accused in which, the photo of the second accused in the life certificate was
replaced by the first and second accused after being attested by the eighth
accused. Likewise the life certificate of the deceased Raniammal has been
issued by the ninth accused in which, the photo of the second respondent in the
life certificate was replaced by the first and second accused after being attested
by the ninth accused.
8. Even according to the respondent, the photo fixed in the life
certificate was replaced after issuance of the life certificate. Therefore, the
petitioners are being the Doctors, after verifying the life of the second accused,
they issued life certificate. Further it is seen that the first accused impersonated
the deceased Raniammal by the second accused and obtained the life
certificates from the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners never fabricated or
forged any document to attract the offences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
9. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 167 of IPC.
“167 - Public servant framing an incorrect document
with intent to cause injury
Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such
public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of
any document or electronic record, frames or translates that
document in a manner which he knows or believes to be
incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely
that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
Thus, it is clear that to attract the offence under Section 167 of IPC, the
accused must prepare or alter any incorrect document which may cause injury
to any person. However, it requires knowledge and intention.
10. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the
intention of the petitioners or witnesses that the documents are fabricated by
the petitioners herein. Even according to the respondent, after obtaining life
certificates from the petitioners, A1 & A2 removed the second accused
photograph and fixed the deceased Raniammal photo in order to execute
settlement deed as well as the sale deed. The family members had used the life
certificates to manipulate property documents. There is absolutely no evidence
that the petitioners acted or colluded beyond their official duties. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
offence under Section 167 of IPC is not at all attracted as against the
petitioners.
11. Further the offence under Section 167 of IPC can be invoked only
as against the public servant. Therefore, in order to invoke the provision under
Section 167 of IPC as against the public servant, it is mandatory to obtain
sanction to prosecute the public servant. Admittedly, no sanction has been
obtained by the respondent to prosecute the petitioners. Even according to the
respondent, initially the complaint was returned for want of sanction.
Therefore, the respondent submitted representation along with documents
before the Joint Director of Health Services for sanction to prosecute the
petitioners. After conducting full fledged enquiry, the Joint Director of Health
Services had rejected the request made by the respondent for seeking sanction
to prosecute the petitioners. That apart, the request made by the respondent was
also rejected by the District Registrar. Though it was challenged in
W.P.No.1221 of 2023, it is pending before this Court and no sanction has been
occurred to prosecute the petitioners.
12. Insofar as the offence under Section 197 of IPC is concerned, it is
relevant to extract the provisions under Section 197 of IPC as follows :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
“197. Issuing or signing false certificate ;-
Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law
to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such
certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or
believing that such certificate is false in any material point,
shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false
evidence.”
There is no specific allegations as against the petitioners as if they falsely
issued the certificate. Even according to the respondent, the life certificate was
forged or misused by the other accused persons by changing the photograph,
manipulating seal, signature. There is no act of falsification of records by the
petitioners. Therefore, the ingredients under Section 197 of IPC are missing in
this case.
13. That apart in order to prosecute the public servant under Section
197 of IPC, there is a bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. It is relevant to
extract the Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., as follows:-
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of
public servants, for offences against public justice and for
offences relating to documents given in evidence.
............
(1) No Court shall take cognizance -
..................
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following
sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely,
sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both
inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been
committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
.......”
Thus it is clear that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence under
Section 193 of IPC on the basis of a private complaint. Cognizance is barred
unless there is a written complaint from the Court before which the alleged
false evidence was given.
14. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2019) 3 SCC 318 in the case of
Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar and ors which reads as
follows :-
20. This Court in M.S. Ahlawat (supra) has clearly held
that private complaints are absolutely barred in relation to an
offence said to have been committed under Section 193 IPC and
that the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. are
mandatory. It was held that:
"5. Chapter XI IPC deals with “false evidence and offences
against public justice” and Section 193 occurring therein
provides for punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
a judicial proceeding. Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure
Code (CrPC) provides that where an act amounts to an offence of
contempt of the lawful authority of public servants or to an
offence against public justice such as giving false evidence
under Section 193 IPC etc. or to an offence relating to documents
actually used in a court, private prosecutions are barred
absolutely and only the court in relation to which the offence was
committed may initiate proceedings. Provisions of Section
195 CrPC are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is
a complaint in writing as required under that section. It is settled
law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it
incumbent upon the court to order prosecution, but (sic) to
exercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger
interest of the administration of justice.
6. Section 340 CrPC prescribes the procedure as to how a
complaint may be preferred under Section 195 CrPC. While
under Section 195 CrPC it is open to the court before which the
offence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of
the offender, Section 340 CrPC prescribes the procedure as to
how that complaint may be preferred. Provisions under Section
195 CrPC are mandatory and no court can take cognizance of
offences referred to therein (sic). It is in respect of such offences
the court has jurisdiction to proceed under Section 340 CrPC and
a complaint outside the provisions of Section 340 CrPC cannot be
filed by any civil, revenue or criminal court under its inherent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied)
21. As already mentioned, clauses under Section
195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. i.e. subsection 195(1)(b)(i) and subsection
195(1)(b)(ii) cater to separate offences. Though Section 340 of the
Cr.P.C. is a generic section for offences committed under Section
195(1)(b), the same has different and exclusive application to
clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
22. In Sachida Nand Singh (supra) relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellant, this Court was considering the question
as to whether the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the
Cr.P.C. is applicable to a case where forgery of the document was
committed before the document was produced in a court. It was
held:
"6. A reading of the clause reveals two main postulates for
operation of the bar mentioned there. First is, there must be
allegation that an offence (it should be either an offence described
in Section 463 or any other offence punishable under Sections
471, 475, 476 of the IPC) has been committed. Second is that such
offence should have been committed in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. There
is no dispute before us that if forgery has been committed while
the document was in the custody of a court, then prosecution can
be launched only with a complaint made by that court. There is
also no dispute that if forgery was committed with a document
which has not been produced in a court then the prosecution
would lie at the instance of any person. If so, will its production in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
a court make all the difference?
23. The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar
contained in Section 195(1)(b) (ii) of the Code is not applicable to
a case where forgery of the document was committed before the
document was produced in a court. Accordingly we dismiss this
appeal.”
23. In Sachida Nand Singh (supra), this Court had dealt
with Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C unlike the present case
which is covered by the preceding clause of the Section. The
category of offences which fall under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the
Cr.P.C. refer to the offence of giving false evidence and offences
against public justice which is distinctly different from those
offences under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C, where a dispute
could arise whether the offence of forging a document was
committed outside the court or when it was in the custody of the
court. Hence, this decision has no application to the facts of the
present case.”
The above case is squarely applicable to the case on hand and it falls under
Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., as offence is punishable under Section 193 of
IPC. Therefore, the trial Court ought not have taken cognizance on the
complaint lodged by the respondent.
15. Even on the factual ground, the complaint cannot be sustainable as
against the petitioners since, the respondent alleged that after obtaining life
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
certificate from the petitioners, the accused 1 & 2 fixed the photograph of the
deceased and produced before the registering authority to register the
documents. Therefore, the petitioners had nothing to do with the life
certificates produced by the first and second accused before the registering
authority.
16. In view of the above discussions, the present proceedings cannot
be sustained and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the proceedings in
C.C.No.76 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Arakkonam, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners alone. The trail Court
is directed to proceed with the trial as against other accused persons in
accordance with law.
17. In result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Arakkonam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
and Crl.M.P.Nos.6016 & 6017 of 2025
15.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:44:05 pm )
