2020 (9) TMI 1174 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Maintainability of IPC Complaints under CrPC Section 195

The Supreme Court held that complaints under Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC are maintainable under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC and cannot be ... Forgery - debit notes created by the Respondents were totally fraudulent - amounts owed by the Appellants to the Respondents or not - applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(i) as well as Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that realising the difficulties in their way, the Appellants suddenly changed course, and applied to the Magistrate vide application dated 09.05.2011 to convert what was a properly drafted application under Section 195 read with section 340 of the CrPC, into a private complaint. A reading of the two complaints leaves no manner of doubt that they have been drafted keeping the ingredients of Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC alone in mind – the only argument from the Appellants now being that since certain debit notes were forged prior to their being introduced in the court proceedings, not only would the ratio in IQBAL SINGH MARWAH & ANR. VERSUS MEENAKSHI MARWAH & ANR. [2005 (3) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT] apply, but also that the ingredients of the “forgery” sections of the IPC have now been made out. While it is important to bear in mind that in genuine cases where the ingredients of forgery as defined in Section 463 of the IPC have been made out, and that therefore, a private complainant should not be left remediless, yet it is equally important to bear in mind the admonition laid down in an early judgment of this Court. Whether the “forging” of the debit notes, so strongly relied upon by Shri Mishra as being offences under Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC, can at all be said to attract the provisions of these Sections? - HELD THAT:- Even if we are to put aside all the averments made in the two complaints (which clearly attract the provisions of Sections 191 and 192 of the Penal Code), and were to concentrate only on the debit notes that are said to have been “created” by the Respondents, it is clear that the debit notes were not “false documents” under Section 464 of the IPC, inasmuch they had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of some other person. Since this basic ingredient of forgery itself is not made out, none of the sections that are sought to be relied upon in Chapter XVIII of the IPC can thus be said to be even prima facie attracted in the facts of this case. Writ petitions that were filed against this order have been dismissed by the impugned judgment - Appeal disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Whether the complaints filed by the appellants under Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC are maintainable under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC.2. Whether the complaints can be converted into private complaints under the 'forgery' sections of the IPC.3. The applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah to the present case.4. The procedural correctness of the orders issued by the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Complaints under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC:The proceedings arise from two criminal complaints filed by the appellants against the respondents under Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC, alleging false evidence and forged documents. The court noted that Section 195 of the CrPC creates an embargo on taking cognizance of certain offences unless a complaint is made by the court where the offence was committed. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 195 is mandatory and an absolute bar unless its conditions are met, as held in Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab. The complaints filed clearly fall under Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC, which are covered by Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC.2. Conversion into Private Complaints:The appellants sought to convert the complaints into private complaints under the 'forgery' sections of the IPC, arguing that the documents were forged before being introduced in court proceedings. The Supreme Court analyzed the distinction between Sections 191/192 and the 'forgery' sections (463, 464, etc.) of the IPC. It was held that the ingredients of forgery, as defined in Section 463, require the making of a 'false document' as per Section 464. The court found that the debit notes in question did not constitute 'false documents' under Section 464, as they were not made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else. Thus, the complaints could not be converted into private complaints under the forgery sections.3. Applicability of Iqbal Singh Marwah Judgment:The appellants heavily relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah, which dealt with Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, to argue that a private complaint would be maintainable. However, the court clarified that Iqbal Singh Marwah applies specifically to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), where the document must be custodia legis before the forgery occurs. The present case falls under Section 195(1)(b)(i), which includes offences committed 'in relation to' any proceeding in any court. Therefore, the ratio of Iqbal Singh Marwah does not apply to the present case.4. Procedural Correctness of Judicial Orders:The Judicial Magistrate converted the complaints into private complaints and issued process under Sections 191, 192, and 193 of the IPC. This was challenged, and the Additional Sessions Judge quashed the complaints, holding that the procedure under Section 340 of the CrPC was mandatory and not followed. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the original complaints should follow the procedure under Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC. However, the court reinstated the original complaints, allowing them to proceed further following the correct procedural drill.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the complaints under Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC are maintainable under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC and cannot be converted into private complaints under the forgery sections. The procedural requirements of Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC must be followed. The appeals were disposed of by reinstating the original complaints to be proceeded with according to the correct procedure.