Supreme Court Clarifies When Forgery Complaint Can Be Filed: Ashok Gulabrao Bondre vs. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 12, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 328

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a person file a criminal complaint alleging forgery of documents, when those documents were allegedly forged before being presented in court? This is the core question the Supreme Court of India addressed in this case. The Court clarified the scope of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) regarding when a court complaint is necessary for offences related to documents submitted as evidence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Ashok Gulabrao Bondre, filed a complaint against the respondents, alleging that they had committed offences including forgery under Sections 191, 192, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 470 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The primary allegation was that respondent No. 2, Ramprasad Pancheshwar, had created false documents, specifically a personal recognizance bond and a surety bond, which were then used in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2003 against the appellant. The appellant claimed that the other respondents conspired with and assisted respondent No. 2 in forging these documents. These documents were eventually filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ramtek, during the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 19 of 2003.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) dismissed the appellant’s complaint on November 6, 2004. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a revision petition. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on March 14, 2005, held that such a complaint could not be filed except in writing by the concerned court or a subordinate court. However, acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the Sessions Judge directed that if the appellant filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., the JMFC should conduct a preliminary inquiry. The appellant then challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which was subsequently rejected. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This section states that no court shall take cognizance of certain offences, including forgery, when such offences are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced in court, except on the complaint in writing of that court. Specifically, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. states:

“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-

(b)(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.”

Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. outlines the procedure for inquiries into offenses mentioned in Section 195. It allows a court to conduct a preliminary inquiry and, if necessary, file a complaint. The interplay between these sections is crucial in determining whether a private complaint is maintainable in cases of alleged forgery of documents used in court proceedings.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant, represented by Mr. Sachin Patil, argued that the alleged forgery of documents occurred *before* they were submitted in the court proceedings.
• Mr. Patil contended that the respondents had forged the personal recognizance bond and surety bond prior to their use in the proceedings against the appellant.
• Therefore, the appellant submitted that the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. should not apply, as the forgery was not committed while the documents were in the custody of the court.
• The appellant relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in *Iqbal Singh Marwa and Another v. Meenakshi Marwah and Another* (2005) 4 SCC 370, to support his argument that a private complaint is maintainable in such cases.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Mr. Rahul Chitnis, representing the respondents, argued that the appellant had already accepted the Revisional Court’s order and filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate.
• He submitted that the question before the court was purely academic, as the appellant had already initiated proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
• Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande supported Mr. Chitnis’s submission.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

✓ Whether the embargo under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable when the allegation is that the documents, which are sought to be used as evidence, were already fabricated and forged prior to being filed in evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

[TABLE] of Issue Treatment

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Surjit Singh and Others v. Balbir Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 533, Supreme Court of India: The Court initially held that if a document, which is the foundation of forgery, is produced before the court, the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. gets attracted, and the court is prohibited from taking cognizance of the offence unless a complaint is filed by the court.
• Sachida Nand Singh and Another v. State of Bihar and Another, (1998) 2 SCC 493, Supreme Court of India: The Court took a different view, stating that the offence should have been committed while the document was in *custodia legis*. If the forgery was committed before the document was produced in court, it would not be considered as affecting the administration of justice merely because the document later reached the court records.
• Iqbal Singh Marwa and Another v. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, (2005) 4 SCC 370, Supreme Court of India: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court clarified the conflicting views and held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences were committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a court proceeding, i.e., during the time when the document was in *custodia legis*. The Court approved the view taken in *Sachida Nand Singh*.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section bars courts from taking cognizance of certain offences (including forgery) related to documents produced in court, except on the complaint of the court itself.
• Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section outlines the procedure for inquiries into offenses mentioned in Section 195.
• Sections 191, 192, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 470 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These are the sections under which the appellant had filed a complaint, alleging offences of forgery and related crimes.

[TABLE] of Authorities Considered

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court considered the judgment in *Surjit Singh and Others v. Balbir Singh* [(1996) 3 SCC 533]* and noted that it had taken a view that if a document, which is the foundation of forgery, is produced before the court, the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. gets attracted.
• The Court then considered the view taken in *Sachida Nand Singh and Another v. State of Bihar and Another* [(1998) 2 SCC 493]* wherein it was held that the offence should have been committed while the document was in *custodia legis*. The Court noted that this view was different from the view taken in *Surjit Singh*.
• The Supreme Court then relied on the Constitution Bench decision in *Iqbal Singh Marwa and Another v. Meenakshi Marwah and Another* [(2005) 4 SCC 370]* which had approved the view taken in *Sachida Nand Singh*. The court held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences were committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a court proceeding, i.e., during the time when the document was in *custodia legis*.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the purity of the administration of justice and to ensure that the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is applied correctly. The Court emphasized that the crucial factor is the timing of the alleged forgery. If the forgery occurred before the document was produced in court, the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would not apply, and a private complaint is maintainable. The Court’s analysis of previous judgments, especially the Constitution Bench decision in *Iqbal Singh Marwa*, played a significant role in reaching this conclusion. The Court also considered the potential for abuse if the bar under Section 195 were to be applied too broadly, which could prevent genuine grievances from being addressed.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions and the precedents set by previous judgments. The Court clarified that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. is applicable only when the forgery is committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a court proceeding, i.e., during the time when the document was in *custodia legis*. The Court rejected the argument that the appellant had already accepted the Revisional Court’s order and initiated proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., stating that this did not preclude the court from clarifying the legal position.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment in *Iqbal Singh Marwa*:

“Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.”

The Court further stated:

“In the present case, the will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody’s case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the said will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents.”

Key Takeaways

• A private complaint is maintainable for offences of forgery if the alleged forgery occurred before the document was produced or given in evidence in a court proceeding.
• The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. applies only when the forgery is committed after the document is in the custody of the court (*custodia legis*).
• The timing of the alleged forgery is crucial in determining whether a private complaint can be filed.
• The Supreme Court has clarified the law to prevent the misuse of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., which could otherwise hinder genuine complaints of forgery.

Directions

The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the learned JMFC, Ramtek, for considering the appellant’s complaint on its own merits. The Court requested the JMFC to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of one year from the date of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. applies only when the alleged forgery occurs after the document has been produced or filed in court. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. and reaffirms the position taken in *Sachida Nand Singh* and *Iqbal Singh Marwa*. It provides clarity on the maintainability of private complaints in cases where documents are alleged to have been forged before their submission in court. This judgment has settled the law on this issue, making it clear that a private complaint is maintainable in such cases, thus changing the previous position of law as held in *Surjit Singh*.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Ashok Gulabrao Bondre vs. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh and Others* clarifies that a private complaint is maintainable for offences of forgery if the alleged forgery occurred before the document was produced in court. The Court emphasized that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. applies only when the forgery is committed after the document is in the custody of the court. This decision ensures that individuals can seek redressal for forgery even if the forged documents are later used in court proceedings, provided the forgery occurred before the document was submitted to the court.