9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1003 - SC - Indian LawsCommission of offence committed in relation to fabrication and forgery of documents after the suit was withdrawn - within the purview of Section 195 (1) (b) of the CrPC - expression Complaint - validity of cognizance taken by the Magistrate and the High Court s dismissal of the petition challenging such cognizance - HELD THAT - From the record it clearly indicate that the proceedings initiated by filing of Civil Suit were concluded on submitted the withdrawal pursis. All the subsequent acts that is preparation of bogus documents and replacing these bogus documents to the court record were the acts post conclusion of the proceedings. It may not be out of place here to mention that as the suit was withdrawn on the withdrawal pursis and the entry was made in Rojkam the documents in the said civil Suit No. 79 of 2003 were divided into four files viz. A B C and D and thereafter the said files were despatched vide Outward Register No. 215 of 2004 to the Record Office of District Court Bharuch on 4th May 2004 as per the provisions of the Civil Courts Manual. The record thereafter was lying in the custody of the Deputy Registrar-cum-Record Keeper District Court Bharuch. Thus the record was not in the custody of the court before whom the civil suit was filed. Thus Section 195 CrPC is not at all applicable. On the contrary the principles which are expounded by this Court in certain judgments and collectively referred to in the judgment of M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala Ors. 2024 (11) TMI 1110 - SUPREME COURT in para 21 relating to prosecution under Section 195 CrPC are applicable in the present case. In our opinion the following principles from M.R. Ajayan (supra) are applicable iv. Broadly the scheme of the Section requires that the offence should be such which has a direct bearing on the discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a Court of justice affecting the administration of justice. v. The provision only creates a bar against taking cognizance of an offence in certain specified situations except upon complaint by the Court. vi. To attract the bar under Section 195(1)(b) the offence should have been committed when the document was in custodia legis or in the custody of the Court concerned. viii. High Courts can exercise jurisdiction and power enumerated under Section 195 on an application being made to it or suo-motu whenever the interest of justice so demands. ix. In such a case where the High Court as a superior Court directs a complaint to be filed in respect of an offence covered under Section - 195(1)(b)(i) the bar for taking cognizance will not apply. It is not in dispute that the object of imposition of the bar under Section 195 CrPC is to avoid the frivolous litigation and not to provide shelter or tool to a mischief player or an offender. Thus in our opinion the judgment and order passed by the High Court is just and proper. The High court by considering the facts in its proper perspective arrived at a just conclusion. Therefore we see no reason to show any indulgence in the judgment and order passed by High Court impugned in the present appeal. The appeal thus being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any shall be disposed of accordingly.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court were: (a) Whether the offences alleged, involving tampering, fabrication, and substitution of court records and production of forged documents in execution proceedings, fall within the ambit of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), thereby requiring cognizance only upon a complaint in writing signed by the presiding judicial officer. (b) Whether the withdrawal of the civil suit conclusively terminates the court proceedings such that subsequent tampering with records no longer constitutes an offence "in relation to any proceeding in any Court" under Section 195 CrPC. (c) Whether the FIR lodged by the Registrar on direction of the High Court and the subsequent investigation and prosecution comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC. (d) The applicability and interpretation of the expression "proceeding" in Section 195 CrPC, specifically whether concluded or withdrawn proceedings are covered. (e) The legal effect of the alleged fabrication and forgery of documents after the suit was withdrawn and whether such acts affect the administration of justice so as to attract the bar under Section 195 CrPC. (f) The validity of cognizance taken by the Magistrate and the High Court's dismissal of the petition challenging such cognizance. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a) and (d): Applicability of Section 195 CrPC and the meaning of "proceeding" The legal framework under Section 195 CrPC bars courts from taking cognizance of offences committed in relation to court proceedings except upon a complaint in writing by the presiding officer of the court concerned. The provision aims to protect the administration of justice from frivolous or vexatious litigation. Precedents such as the judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah emphasize that offences attracting Section 195 must directly affect the administration of justice and relate to documents produced or given in evidence during live court proceedings. The Court interpreted "proceeding" to mean an active judicial process which is either pending or concluded by judicial pronouncement. Withdrawal of a suit by the plaintiff is equivalent to cessation of proceedings, leaving no live proceeding before the court. The Court reasoned that once a suit is withdrawn unconditionally, no proceeding subsists before the court, and the mere retention of records in the court's record room does not amount to the documents being in "custodia legis" as contemplated under Section 195. Thus, the acts of tampering with documents after withdrawal of the suit do not fall within the ambit of Section 195 CrPC, as they do not relate to any ongoing judicial proceeding affecting administration of justice. The Court rejected the contention that concluded or withdrawn proceedings remain "proceedings" for purposes of Section 195, holding that the statutory bar does not extend to acts committed post conclusion or withdrawal of proceedings. Issue (b) and (e): Effect of withdrawal of suit and subsequent tampering on applicability of Section 195 CrPC The facts showed that the suit was withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioner himself through a withdrawal pursis, endorsed by the trial court, and recorded in the daily order sheet (Rojkam) with no decree drawn. Subsequently, the original court record was transferred to the record office and was no longer in active court custody. The alleged offences of tampering, fabrication, and substitution of documents occurred after the suit was withdrawn and the record was in the custody of court employees, not before the court. The Court found that such post-proceeding acts do not affect the administration of justice in the sense contemplated by Section 195, as the judicial process had ended and no active proceeding existed. The Court distinguished offences committed in connection with execution proceedings, noting that production of forged documents in live execution proceedings could attract Section 195, but in this case, the forged decree was fabricated prior to production in court and thus did not directly affect the administration of justice at the time of fabrication. Issue (c) and (f): Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC and validity of cognizance The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged without a complaint signed by the presiding officer, thus violating Section 195 CrPC, and that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance. The respondent submitted that the FIR was lodged on the direction of the High Court following a vigilance inquiry, thereby complying with Section 340(3) CrPC and justifying the initiation of prosecution. The Court referred to principles laid down in M.R. Ajayan, emphasizing that Section 195 bars cognizance only for offences directly affecting court proceedings and that the bar does not protect offenders from prosecution where offences are committed outside the scope of Section 195. The Court held that since the offences did not fall within Section 195, the bar was not attracted, and the Magistrate rightly took cognizance based on the chargesheet. The Court further noted that the High Court's direction to file complaint and FIR complied with procedural safeguards, and the prosecution was not barred. The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments that the FIR was invalid for lack of complaint by the presiding officer, holding that the bar under Section 195 did not apply to the facts. Application of law to facts and treatment of competing arguments The Court carefully analyzed the factual matrix, including the withdrawal of the suit, the timing of alleged offences, and the nature of the documents tampered with. The petitioner's argument that the offences were committed in relation to court proceedings was rejected on the ground that the proceedings had ceased upon withdrawal. The Court distinguished between offences committed during live proceedings and those committed after proceedings had concluded, holding that only the former attract Section 195. The Court also addressed the petitioner's reliance on Section 195(1)(b)(ii) relating to offences concerning documents produced in court, finding that since the forged decree was fabricated before production, it did not attract the provision. The respondent's argument that the FIR was valid and cognizance proper was accepted, with the Court emphasizing the interest of justice and the need to prevent misuse of Section 195 as a shield for offenders. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held: "Once a proceeding is withdrawn, there would be no proceeding before the Court as the plaintiff has taken back the proceeding. The position would be akin to no proceeding having been filed except for the purpose of barring a subsequent suit on the same cause of action." "By merely maintaining the documents in the record room, it cannot be said that the documents are in custodia legis, as envisaged under Section 195 of the Code." "Any offence committed in relation to the documents kept in the record room, cannot be said to be an offence falling within the ambit of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code so as to attract the provisions of Section 340 of the Code." "The offence committed should be of such type which directly affects the administration of justice, viz. which is committed after the document is produced or given in evidence in court." "Since the offence in question does not fall within the ambit of section 195 of the Code, as a natural corollary, the exception below section 195(1) as well as the provisions of section 340 of the Act would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the charge-sheet filed by the police authorities." "The object of imposition of the bar under Section 195 CrPC is to avoid the frivolous litigation and not to provide shelter or tool to a mischief player or an offender." Core principles established include:
Final determinations: The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order dismissing the petitioner's challenge to cognizance. The Court found no infirmity in the Magistrate's or Sessions Judge's orders and held that the prosecution could proceed without violation of Section 195 or 340 CrPC.
|
