IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NOS : 554 and 555 of 2008 Crl.P. No.554 of 2008: Between: 1 Medapati Sathyanarayana Reddy, S/o Subbireddy, Contractor, Racket Part, Tadepalilgudam, Town P.S., W.G.Dist. 2 Poliparthi Bhadrachalam, S/o Gavarayya, Tadepalilgudam, Town P.S., W.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Mannepalli Gopalakrishna, S/o Late Subrahmanyam, K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem (Town P.S.,) W.G.Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the FIR No.311 of 2007 of P.S., Tadepalligudem Town referred by (Cr.No.311/2007) of Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dist. Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. UDAYA SRI MALLIDI, Advocate for the Petitioners, and of Sri S. SUBBA REDDY, Advocate for the 2nd respondent and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the 1st Respondent. Crl.P. No.555 of 2008: Between: 1 Garapati Rama Koteswara Rao, S/o Seshagiri Rao, Apurva Shamiyana Suppliers, Nandibomma Centre, K.N.Road, Tadepalilgudam, Town P.S., W.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Mannepalli Gopalakrishna, S/o Late Subrahmanyam, K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem (Town P.S.,) W.G.Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the FIR No.311 of 2007 of P.S., Tadepalligudem Town referred by (Cr.No.311/2007) of Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dist. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Smt.UDAYA SRI MALLIDI, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri S. SUBBA REDDY, Advocate for the 2nd respondent and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the 1st Respondent. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The criminal petition Nos.554 and 555 of 2008 were filed respectively by the 2nd and 3rd accused and the 1st accused in Crime No.311 of 2007 of Tadepalligudem police station for quashing the criminal proceedings against them initiated by the 2nd respondent therein. The 2nd respondent claimed that the 1st accused is the sub- lessee of Dusanapudi Venugopala Rao, the lessee of the 2nd respondent in respect of the subject shop and the 2nd respondent filed O.S. No.594 of 2005 for their eviction, which is pending. The 1st accused filed a false document, dated 07-08-2005 forging the signature of the 2nd respondent for the advance deposit allegedly received to a tune of Rs.1,50,000/- by the 2nd respondent, in which the 2nd and 3rd accused actively participated by attesting the document. Accused 1 to 3 were claimed to have fraudulently and dishonestly intended to cause wrongful loss to the 2nd respondent and wrongful gain to the 1st accused through the forged document projected as genuine and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent also claimed that the document was opined by the handwriting expert to be a rank forgery in his report in I.A. No.1164 of 2006 in O.S. No.594 of 2005. He filed a private complaint before the Court under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was referred to the police for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and registered as such. The copies of the disputed document and the opinion of the handwriting expert are also on record. What the petitioners contend is that the complaint was filed at a very preliminary stage of the suit and though the expert opinion is not necessarily binding on the civil Court, which did not conclude the document to be a forgery, the proceedings are hasty at the instance of the owner of the shop who somehow desires to evict the lawful tenant and the proceedings are an abuse of process of law. The learned counsel for the petitioners also filed copies of the rent receipts and the quit notice issued by the 2nd respondent during hearing. Heard Smt. M. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri H. Prahalad Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana[1], wherein it was held that private prosecutions are absolutely barred in respect of an offence relating to documents actually used in a Court and only the Court in relation to which an offence is committed, may initiate proceedings. She also relied on Kodati Ramana alias Venkatarama Rao v. The Station House Officer[2], wherein it was held that even if there is a prima facie case according to the investigation into the alleged offences, a complaint in respect of the offences covered by Section 195 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. The investigation into such offences was, hence, quashed. In Illa Sreerama Murthy v. Sanivarapu Satyanarayana[3], it was held that there is mandatory bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Court in taking a complaint on file in respect of the offences under Sections 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code. She further relied on State of A.P. v. V. Sarma Rao[4], which dealt with the question of judicial subordination and judicial discipline vis-a-vis Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not the question involved herein. Smt. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioners lastly relied on M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka[5], wherein it was held that Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not effect the power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence. The Apex Court followed their earlier decision in State of Punjab v. Raj Singh[6], wherein it was pointed out that Section 195 comes into operation when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence and the statutory power of the police to investigate under the Code is not, in any way, controlled or circumscribed by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Apex Court pointed out that the embargo in Section 195 would come into play after the investigation is completed and then the Court itself would file a complaint on the basis of the information report and the material collected during investigation, provided the procedure laid down in Section 340 of the Code is followed. This decision, in fact, appears to be more in favour of the 2nd respondent and on the principle laid down in the said decision, even if the alleged offences have to be considered to be those covered by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, still the power of the police to investigate into the same is unaffected, and so would be the power of the Magistrate to refer such complaint for investigation and report by the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code. The question of applicability or otherwise of Section 195 would come into play only at the stage of the Court taking cognizance of the offence. Even otherwise, the primary objection taken by the petitioners stands answered by Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah[7] by a five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court clearly holding that the bar under Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply where forgery of a document was committed before the said document was produced into Court. The Apex Court pointed out that any offence committed with respect to a document at a time prior to its production or giving in evidence in Court cannot, strictly speaking, be said to be an offence effecting the administration of justice. It was pointed out that Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted only when the offences enumerated 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. when the document was in custodia legis. In the present case, the allegation of the 2nd respondent is that a forged document was filed into Court with the forgery having been obviously committed prior to the document being filed into Court and therefore, the bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application at all in the light of the above cited decision and there is nothing illegal, improper or irregular in the learned Magistrate referring the complaint of the 2nd respondent to the police. It is true that the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.554 of 2008 were merely attestors to the alleged document, but the allegations of the 2nd respondent are that they are also positively involved in fabricating and creating the forged document, which allegations have to be investigated into by the statutory investigating agency and if they were to file a police report against all the three accused before the Court of competent jurisdiction, by the said Court on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it during trial, but not by this Court in a restricted and limited enquiry under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The summary proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be converted into a deep fact finding enquiry on the disputed questions of fact. The contention that the criminal proceedings could not have been initiated prematurely before the civil Court gave a finding on the truth or otherwise of the document, is not shown to be based on any provision or principle of law and if the committal of the alleged offences were true, there is nothing that would debar the 2nd respondent from setting the criminal law into motion, notwithstanding the pendency of the civil suit, in which the document in question is sought to be placed as a piece of evidence. Before the orders are about to be pronounced, Smt. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioners cited two more precedents. In Rugmini Ammal v. N. Narayana Reddiar[8], the Apex Court laid down that in respect of a document, which was produced before the Government and not before the Court, the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of offence referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Apex Court had reiterated what has been laid down in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar[9], wherein it was held that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) 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 Apex Court also again approved the position highlighted accordingly in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (7 supra) and therefore, the conclusion already reached is fortified. In P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu[10] relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same principle was reiterated stating that the protection from prosecution at the instance of a private party or police is where the document has been filed before the Court and an offence has been committed in respect thereof, while the document is in the custody of the Court. The Apex Court had, in fact, made it clear that it is only in respect of the documents in custodia legis, the said provision would apply, if the offences are committed while the documents are in Court's custody. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to deviate from the above reached conclusion. Under the circumstances, there appear absolutely no grounds to exercise the inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in rarest of rare cases and which jurisdiction has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. Therefore, the criminal petitions are dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-08-2009 Svv ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.Two CC's to Public Prosecutor 2.Two CD Copies 3.One CC to Form-NIC-0GS/CRLP{TSN} [1] (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 278 [2] 1992 CRI.L.J. 680 [3] 2001 CRI.L.J. 1975 [4] (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 159 [5] (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 251 [6] 1998 SCC (Cri) 642 [7] 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 717 (SC) = 2005 AIR SCW 1929 [8] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 895 [9] AIR 1998 SC 1121 [10] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1884