Supreme Court Refers Question on Preliminary Inquiry Under Section 340 CrPC to Larger Bench

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 February 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 173
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Is it mandatory for a court to conduct a preliminary inquiry and provide a hearing to the accused before ordering prosecution for offenses related to documents submitted in court? The Supreme Court of India grapples with this question in a case concerning alleged forgery of documents in revenue court proceedings. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and its interplay with Section 195 of the CrPC. The two-judge bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar delivered this judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute where the respondent, Jasbir Singh, is accused of submitting forged documents in revenue court proceedings. The timeline of events is as follows:

• ✓ Jasbir Singh’s mother, Karamjit Kaur, applied for property transfer based on possession in Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.
• ✓ On 28.06.2002, the Tehsildar (Sales) approved the transfer in favor of Karamjit Kaur.
• ✓ In 2005, Jasbir Singh filed a suit claiming ownership of the property, which is still pending.
• ✓ In 2006, Jasbir Singh appealed the Tehsildar’s order, claiming the application was made jointly with his mother, not just by her.
• ✓ In parallel mutation proceedings, Jasbir Singh got the land mutated in his favor along with his cousins.
• ✓ The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patti declared the mutation contested and sanctioned it in favor of Tarjit Kaur on 11.12.2006.
• ✓ Jasbir Singh’s appeal against this order was dismissed on 06.06.2007.
• ✓ On 29.08.2007, the SDM-cum-Sales Commissioner, Patti, set aside the Tehsildar’s order and directed the land transfer to be jointly in the names of Jasbir Singh and his mother. This was based on a report stating the initial application was joint.
• ✓ The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Tarn Taran, restored the original order of 28.06.2002, noting that Jasbir Singh had submitted forged documents in connivance with Tehsil staff.
• ✓ The Deputy Commissioner directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patti, to register an FIR against Jasbir Singh.
• ✓ On 11.04.2008, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patti, directed the SHO, Police Station, Patti, to register the FIR, leading to the FIR against Jasbir Singh.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the FIR against Jasbir Singh, primarily because the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner did not conduct an inquiry or direct a subordinate authority to do so before ordering the FIR, as required by Section 340 read with Section 195 of the CrPC. The High Court held that the FIR was filed without any inquiry or opportunity for Jasbir Singh to be heard, making it liable to be quashed.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are:

• ✓ Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC: This section states that no court shall take cognizance of offenses described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 471, 475, or 476 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), when such offenses are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.
  
  “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…”
• ✓ Section 195(3) of the CrPC: This clarifies that the term “Court” includes Civil, Revenue, or Criminal Courts, and tribunals constituted by a Central, Provincial, or State Act, if declared as a Court for the purposes of this section.
• ✓ Section 340(1) of the CrPC: This section outlines the procedure to be followed when a court believes an inquiry is necessary for offenses mentioned in Section 195. It allows the court to conduct a preliminary inquiry, if deemed necessary, before making a formal complaint.
  
  “(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary —
  (a)record a finding to that effect;
  (b)make a complaint thereof in writing;
  (c)send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
  (d)take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
  (e)bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.”

These provisions are part of the CrPC, which governs the procedure for criminal trials in India. Section 195 ensures that offenses related to documents presented in court are dealt with carefully, while Section 340 provides a mechanism for courts to initiate inquiries into such offenses.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Punjab) Arguments:

• ✓ It is not mandatory for the Court to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC before filing a complaint under Section 195 of the CrPC.
• ✓ The Court is not required to provide an opportunity of hearing to the person against whom a complaint is filed before initiating prosecution proceedings.
• ✓ Section 340 of the CrPC does not grant any right to the person to participate in the preliminary inquiry.
• ✓ The State relied on the judgments in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253, Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, (2017) 1 SCC 113, and Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya, (2010) 15 SCC 290, to support its contentions.

Respondent (Jasbir Singh) Arguments:

• ✓ The respondent argued in support of the High Court’s judgment, which quashed the FIR.
• ✓ The respondent contended that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner should have conducted an inquiry and provided an opportunity of being heard before ordering prosecution under Section 195 of the CrPC.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following questions for consideration:

1. ✓ Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court?
2. ✓ What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253:* The court noted that this judgment held that a preliminary inquiry was not mandatory.
• ✓ Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, (2017) 1 SCC 113:* The court noted that this judgment followed Pritish (supra) in holding that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory.
• ✓ Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya, (2010) 15 SCC 290:* The court noted that this judgment held that a preliminary inquiry and opportunity of hearing were necessary, but did not provide reasons for departing from Pritish (supra).
• ✓ Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370:* The court noted the observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in relation to the scope of Section 340 of the CrPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench indicates that it was primarily concerned with resolving the conflicting opinions in previous judgments regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry and hearing under Section 340 of the CrPC. The Court’s emphasis on the need for clarity in the law demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that the legal process is consistent and fair.

Ratio: Fact:Law: The Court’s consideration was primarily focused on the legal interpretation of Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC, and the conflicting precedents related to it. The factual aspects of the case were secondary to the legal questions at hand.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court has acknowledged a conflict in its own judgments regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry and hearing under Section 340 of the CrPC.
• ✓ The matter has been referred to a larger bench for a conclusive decision, which will have a significant impact on how courts handle complaints under Section 195 of the CrPC.
• ✓ The decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the need for clarity in legal provisions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders to constitute a larger bench.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that there is a conflict of opinion in the Supreme Court itself regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry and hearing under Section 340 of the CrPC before a court makes a complaint under Section 195 of the CrPC. The matter has been referred to a larger bench to settle the law on this point. This case does not change the previous position of law, but rather seeks to clarify it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench underscores the existing ambiguity in the interpretation of Section 340 of the CrPC. The core issue is whether a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity to be heard are mandatory before a court orders prosecution for offenses related to documents submitted in court. The conflicting views in previous judgments necessitated this referral, indicating the need for a definitive ruling to ensure consistent application of the law.

Category

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Category: Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Category: Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Criminal Procedure

Child Category: Preliminary Inquiry

FAQ

Q: What is Section 195 of the CrPC about?
A: Section 195 of the CrPC restricts courts from taking cognizance of certain offenses, such as those related to documents submitted in court, unless a complaint is made by the court itself.

Q: What is Section 340 of the CrPC about?
A: Section 340 of the CrPC outlines the procedure for a court to make a complaint for offenses mentioned in Section 195. It allows the court to conduct a preliminary inquiry, if necessary, before making a formal complaint.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court did not make a final decision but referred the matter to a larger bench due to conflicting opinions in previous judgments regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry and hearing under Section 340 of the CrPC.

Q: What does it mean for the case to be referred to a larger bench?
A: It means that a larger group of judges will hear the case to resolve the conflict in legal opinions and make a conclusive decision on the issue.

Q: What are the practical implications of this case?
A: The outcome of the larger bench decision will determine whether courts must conduct a preliminary inquiry and provide a hearing to the accused before ordering prosecution for offenses related to documents submitted in court. This will affect the procedure followed in such cases in the future.