Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Forgery Complaint: Senior Manager (P&D), RIICO Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (2017)

Can a criminal case for forgery be dismissed if the forged document was presented in court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving allegations of a forged letter. The Court examined whether the lower courts were correct in dismissing the complaint. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and A.K. Sikri, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) filed on April 29, 1992, by the Senior Manager (P&D) of RIICO Ltd., alleging forgery against M/s. Kanha Refined Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. The manager claimed that a letter dated April 10, 1992, was forged and dispatched from his office.

The manager, upon learning about the letter, asked the company to produce the original within 24 hours. Instead, the letter was produced by the company’s counsel in a civil suit on April 27, 1992. The manager then filed the FIR, alleging that the company had forged the letter and dispatched it through a Class IV employee.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the police submitted a final report stating they couldn’t investigate due to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted this report on May 22, 1998. However, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside this order on May 1, 2000, and remanded the matter.

After remand, the Chief Judicial Magistrate again dismissed the protest petition, relying on Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The Revisional Court, however, set aside this order on July 21, 2003, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493, which held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. does not apply when a document is forged before being produced in court.

Subsequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the protest petition again on June 20, 2009, this time on merits, finding no prima facie case of forgery. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application on July 22, 2011. The High Court dismissed a petition against this order on February 7, 2017.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This section states that a court cannot take cognizance of certain offenses, including forgery, if they are committed in relation to a document produced in court, unless the court itself files a complaint.

Section 195(1)(b)(ii) 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 of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.”

The Supreme Court has clarified that this provision applies only when the forgery occurs *after* the document is produced in court. If the document was forged before being presented in court, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. does not bar the court from taking cognizance of the offense.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the forged letter was created before it was presented in court, thus Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. should not apply. The appellant contended that the lower courts should have taken cognizance of the offense, because the company was the beneficiary of the forged letter.

The respondent argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not dismissed the protest petition based on Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., but rather on the lack of evidence against the respondent. They further argued that the letter was dispatched from the Regional Manager’s office by a Class IV employee and there was no evidence to suggest the respondent was involved in forging the letter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the lower courts were correct in dismissing the complaint, particularly considering the applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. and the evidence available on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following case:

• Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370: The Constitution Bench held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. applies only when offenses are committed concerning a document after it has been produced in court.
• Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493: This case was cited to support the view that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. does not apply when the document was forged before being produced in court.

The court also considered the following legal provision:

• Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Judgment

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was not applicable in this case. The court noted that the forgery was alleged to have occurred before the letter was produced in court. The court also upheld the lower courts’ finding that there was no evidence to suggest the respondent was involved in forging the letter.

The Court observed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Revisional Court had considered the material on record and concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the accused. The High Court also upheld this view.

The Supreme Court stated that the issue of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. had been resolved in favor of the appellant by the Revisional Court. The subsequent dismissal of the protest petition was based on the merits of the case, not on the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.

The court held that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence and found no basis to proceed against the respondent for forgery.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment of the Revisional Court:
“But in this conclusion it has also been mentioned that it has not been established as to these signatures are of whom and these signatures would have made by Ravi Setia. In this way letter the letter dated 10.04.1992 would have prepared by the Respondent No. 2 in a forged manner, at this stage, it has not become clear in any manner.”

The Supreme Court also quoted from Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370:
“Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC 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 Supreme Court also quoted from Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493 to emphasize that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. does not apply when the document was forged before being produced in court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence connecting the respondent to the alleged forgery. The fact that the letter was dispatched by a Class IV employee and the handwriting expert could not confirm the respondent’s involvement weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. Additionally, the Court emphasized that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was not a bar to the case, as the forgery was alleged to have occurred before the document was presented in court.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. does not bar a court from taking cognizance of a forgery case if the forgery occurred before the document was produced in court.
• A criminal complaint can be dismissed if there is no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offense.
• Courts will look into the merits of the case, not just the technicalities of the law.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle established in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Sachida Nand Singh, clarifying that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. applies only to forgeries committed after a document is produced in court. This judgment reinforces the distinction between forgeries committed before and after the document is filed in court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts’ decision to dismiss the forgery complaint. The Court found that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was not a bar to the case, and there was no evidence to connect the respondent with the alleged forgery. The court emphasized that while the technicalities of the law were important, the merits of the case had to be considered.