2000 (7) TMI 990 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Dismisses SLP 3889/1999, Grants Leave in SLP 304/1999, Overturns High Court Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed special leave petition (Crl.) No. 3889 of 1999. In another case (S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 304 of 1999), the Court granted leave and ... Forgery - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Summons issuance in criminal complaint - Pleading standards in a criminal complaint - Offences under Sections 465 and 466 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal CodeQuashing of criminal proceedings - Summons issuance in criminal complaint - Validity of the High Court's quashing of proceedings and sustaining of Magistrate's order issuing summons to accused Nos. 1 and 3 - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in setting aside the Magistrate's order which had issued summons against accused Nos. 1 and 3. The Magistrate had concluded that prima facie offences under the specified forgery provisions were disclosed and issued summons. The complaint expressly alleged that all three accused had together forged the certificate produced in court; the Supreme Court held that, on the material before the Magistrate and at the stage of issuance of summons, the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 3. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits so as not to prejudice trial-stage contentions and noted that the allegation of joint forging may turn out to be wholly or partly incorrect, but that possibility did not justify quashing at this stage. [Paras 7, 10, 11, 12]Order of the High Court quashing proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 3 set aside; Magistrate's order issuing summons upheld and trial court order restored.Pleading standards in a criminal complaint - Forgery - Offences under Sections 465 and 466 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code - Whether the complainant was obliged at the summons stage to plead the specific role of each accused in the making of the forged document - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's premise that the complainant was required to set out the precise role played by each accused in manufacturing the document at the stage of the complaint and issuance of summons. The complaint specifically alleged that the accused had together forged the certificate presented in court; such an allegation, viewed at the prima facie stage, sufficed to implicate the accused and to justify issuance of summons. The Court emphasized that detailed determination of individual roles is a matter for trial and that premature quashing on the basis of absence of particularised pleading was not warranted. [Paras 10, 11]Absence of specific pleading of individual roles in the complaint did not justify quashing; the allegation of joint forgery was adequate at the summons stage.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the High Court's order quashing proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 3 is set aside and the Magistrate's order issuing summons is restored. All accused remain entitled to raise such pleas as available to them in accordance with law. The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition (Crl.) No. 3889 of 1999. However, in another case (S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 304 of 1999), the Court granted leave and overturned the High Court's decision to quash proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 3 for alleged forgery of a document. The Court found that the complaint specifically alleged that all three accused were involved in forging the document, and the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings.