N Criminal Appeal No 307 of 1983 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 8th November 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No 1936 of 1982
A Subba Rao for the Appellant
B Kanta Rao for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
The short question arising in this appeal by special leave is whether in the absence of necessary complaint by the Civil Court where a money receipt alleged to have been forged was produced prosecution for offences punishable under sections 467 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code would be maintainable
The accused are the appellants and they challenge the dismissal of their application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  Code  for short by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
The appellants are father and son respectively
They took a printing press from the 1st respondent in terms of an agreement dated December 3 1980 with a view to carrying on the printing business
The agreement stipulated that the appellants would have to deposit Rs 20000 with the 1st respondent and pay Rs 500 pm as also 50 of the net profits to 1st respondent
Dispute arose between the parties over the compliance of the terms of the agreement whereupon the 1st respondent filed against the appellants OS No 60981 for mandatory injunction and OS No 114081 for recovery of damages
Appellants filed OS No 35881 for refund of Rs 20000 claimed to have been deposited with 1st respondent and for recovery of RS
8638 on the footing that the same had been paid to 1st respondent by cheques and in cash
Along with their plaint appellants produced the original contract as also the money receipt for Rs 20000 in support of the claim in the suit
After production of the money receipt in Court 1st respondent filed a complaint against the appellants alleging forgery of his signature on the money receipt and thereby commission of offences punishable under sections 467 and 471 IPC On receiving summonses from the Court the appellants objected to maintainability of the criminal action and 838 later move the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for quashing the said proceedings by contending that in the absence of complaint from the Court the prosecution was barred in view of section 195 1 b ii of the Code
In support of this contention reliance was placed on section 340 of the Code
The High Court referred to the provisions of sections 463 465 467 471 and 474 of the Penal Code and observed From the above provisions It is quite manifest that the offence which is mentioned in the complaint carries greater punishment namely 10 years imprisonment whereas under section 463 IPC the punishment is infinitely lesser than the one under section 467 namely 2 years of fine or both
That apart in a case reported in 1979 Crl
LR at 228 it has been held by the Gujarat High Court that the offences laid down under sections 474 and 471 IPC are distinct
In that case it was contended that a complaint by A to police under section 474 that was in possession of forged documents with intention to use them in Court proceedings and thereafter producing documents in Court and thereby committing offence under section 471 did not wipe out the offence under section 474
The High Court held under these circumstances that the Magistrate can proceed with case under section 474 against grounding the reason that section 195 1 b ii is not attracted
The penal provisions as it is fairly settled ought to be interpreted very strictly and therefore on the foregoing analysis I have no hesitation in holding that section 463 cannot be construed to include section 467 as well and therefore certainly it is competent for the Magistrate to take cognizance of and try the same as it is needless to follow the case
Hence the contention on the basis of the provisions in section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fails and the same is rejected
There is no dispute that the alleged forged document was produced in the suit brought by the appellants
Section 340 of the Code provides 340
1 When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry 839 should be made into any offence referred to in clause b of sub section 1 of section 195 which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in 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 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
The relevant part of section 195 referred to in section 340 of the Code reads thus 195
1 No Court shall take cognizance X X X X bii 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
underlining is ours
If section 195 1 b ii is attracted to the facts of the present case in the absence of a complaint in writing of the Civil Court where the alleged forged receipt has been produced taking of cognizance of the offence would be bad in law and the prosecution being not maintainable there would be absolutely no justification to harass 840 the appellants by allowing prosecution to have a full dressed trial
Section 195 1 b ii uses two different expressions in regard to section 463 of the Indian Penal Code it says offence described while in regard to sections 471 and 475 or 476 of the IPC it says punishable
The High Court has not made any reference to section 471 of IPC while rejecting the submissions of the appellants apparently because section 471 in terms has been mentioned in the provision
So far as section 463 is concerned the High Court has taken the view as we have already indicated that section 463 cannot be construed to include section 467
Section 463 of the IPC provides 463
Forgery Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed commits forgery
It is the opening section of Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code dealing with offences relating to documents and to property marks
This opening section in a sense defines the offence of forgery
Section 467 of the Penal Code provides 467
Forgery of valuable security will etc
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will or an authority to adopt a son or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security or to receive the principal interest or dividends thereon or to receive or deliver any money movable property or valuable security or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine
The purpose of our extracting the two sections of the Penal Code is to show the offence which is made punishable under section 467 of 841 the Penal Code is in respect of an offence described in section 463
Once it is accepted that section 463 defines forgery and section 467 punishes forgery of a particular category the provision in section 195 1 b ii of the Code would immediately be attracted and on the basis that the offence punishable under section 467 of the Penal Code is an offence described in section 463 in the absence of a complaint by the Court the prosecution would not be maintainable
We have no doubt in our mind that the High Court took a wrong view of the matter
We may briefly refer to two decisions of this Court
In Patel Laljibhai Somabhai vs The State of Gujarat1 the accused had filed a suit for recovery of certain money on the basis of a forged cheque and a private complaint had been filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate alleging offences under sections 467 and 471 of the IPC
The appellant raised an objection that in view of section 195 1 c of the Code of Criminal Procedure cognizance of the offence could not be taken on a private complaint
The High Court upheld the order of commitment by finding that though there would be a bar for prosecution for offences punishable under sections 467 and 471 of the IPC
On a private complaint in the facts of the case that question did not arise and this Court refused to interfere by holding that the alleged offences had been committed at a time when the accused was not a party to the civil proceeding
Not the conclusion but the ratio supports our view
In SL Goswami vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur2 to which one of us was a party
it was held that an offence under section 466 IPC was covered by clause c of section 195 1 of the Code and it came within the purview of the section as the offence under section 463 IPC is dealt With in section 466 IPC Section 466 I PC it was pointed out was an aggravated form of forgery in that the forgery should relate to a document specified in that section
Section 466 IPC was therefore an offence as described in section 463 IPC which was committed in relation to a record or proceeding of or in a Court of justice
What was said in the aforesaid decision in regard to the offence under section 466 IPC has full application to an offence under s 467 IPC Therefore the ratio of the last cited decision has full application to the present case
842 In view of what we have said above the prosecution in the instant case on the basis of a private complaint and in the absence of a complaint from the appropriate civil court where the alleged fraudulent receipt has been produced would not be sustainable
As we are of the view that if the prosecution is allowed to continue serious prejudice would be caused to the appellants and they would be called upon to face a trial which would not be sustainable we allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court and quash the complaint case filed against the appellants
HSK Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellants filed a civil suit against the respondents for recovery of certain amount of money and produced some original documents with the plaint
The first respondent filed a complaint against the appellants alleging forgery of his signature on one such document and thereby commission or offences punishable under sections 467 and 471 IPC
The appellants objected to maintainability of the criminal action and later moved the High Court for quashing the said proceedings
The appellants contended that in the absence of complaint from the civil court the prosecution was barred in view of section 195 1bii of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The High Court dismissed tho application and observed that section 463 IPC cannot be construed to include section 467
Allowing the appeal  HELD The prosecution would not be sustainable
842 B Section 1951bii of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in section 463
Of the Penal Code when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced  in a proceeding in any Court  except on the complaint in writing of that Court
Section 463 of the Penal Code in a sense defines the offence of forgery and the offence which is made punishable under section 467 is in respect of an offence described in section 463
Once it is accepted that section 463 defines forgery and section 467 punishes forgery of a particular category the provision in section 195lbii of the Code of Criminal Procedure would immediately be attracted and on the basis that the offence punishable under section 467 of the Penal Code is an offence described in section 463 in the absence of a complaint by the Court the prosecution would not be maintainable
839 E G 840 D E H 841 A B Patel Laljibhal Somabhai vs The State of Gujarat  and section L Goswami vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh ar Jabalpur  referred to 837