TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and the ongoing investigation on the ground that the complaint did not disclose a prima facie offence and that the matter should not proceed at the investigation stage; (ii) Whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applied where the alleged forgery of documents had occurred before the documents were produced in court.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and the ongoing investigation on the ground that the complaint did not disclose a prima facie offence and that the matter should not proceed at the investigation stage.
Analysis: The complaint contained specific allegations that sale deeds relied upon for asserting title were forged and fabricated and were used as genuine to support a fraudulent claim over the property. In the settled law governing exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, criminal proceedings or FIRs may be quashed only in rare and compelling circumstances where no offence is disclosed or the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. The allegations here were not so bereft of basic facts as to justify interference at the threshold, and the question whether the accused had forged the documents was a matter for investigation.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR and the investigation on the ground that no offence was made out.
Issue (ii): Whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applied where the alleged forgery of documents had occurred before the documents were produced in court.
Analysis: The controlling principle is that the statutory bar applies only where the offences relating to forgery are committed in respect of a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in court and while it remains in custodia legis. Where the alleged forgery occurred before production before the court, the bar is not attracted. On the facts, the sale deeds were alleged to have been forged prior to their use in the civil proceedings, so the statutory prohibition on cognizance did not arise.
Conclusion: Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not attracted.
Final Conclusion: The interference by the High Court could not be sustained, and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A criminal FIR alleging forgery and use of forged documents cannot be quashed at the investigation stage if the complaint discloses a prima facie offence, and the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only to forgery committed after the document has entered the custody of the court.
TaxTMI 
