Crl. Misc. No. M-18765 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-18765 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 1, 2009 Sujeet Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rattan Brar, AAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to seek the quashing of FIR No.603 dated November 17, 2004 under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, charge sheet dated September 15, 2005 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Crl. Misc. No. M-18765 of 2008 [2] Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was made by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, to SHO, Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak for registration of FIR by making a complaint to the effect that petitioner Sujeet Kumar had moved an application for contesting the challan of vehicle No. HR-16-B-6905 and had moved an application for superdari for said vehicle in his Court. On the said application report of police was sought and when application was presented before the Court for orders, it was found that registered owner of the vehicle was one Naveen Kumar. Therefore, the application for superdari was returned to the petitioner in original with a direction to produce the registered owner for taking the vehicle on superdari. The same application was again presented before the Court after putting white fluid on the father’s name of the applicant, address. The name was re-typed as Naveen Kumar son of Maman Chand, resident of Tosham Road, Bhiwani and it was signed as Naveen Kumar. Even on earlier signatures white fluid was put. It was mentioned in the complaint that the conduct of the petitioner was not genuine and he intended to defraud the Court. Keeping in view all the circumstances, the application for superdari moved by the petitioner was dismissed on September 21, 2004. Another application was moved by Naveen Kumar on November 5, 2004 for release of RC of the vehicle. When said application was moved, Naveen Kumar made a statement in the Court that he had never moved any application for superdari in the case and the signatures purported to be his are not made by him. Thus notice was issued to the petitioner again. Petitioner appeared in the Court and admitted that the application dated Crl. Misc. No. M-18765 of 2008 [3] September 20, 2004 was signed by him as Naveen Kumar and this was done by him on the asking of his Advocate. On the basis of the statement of Naveen Kumar and Sujeet Kumar, the Court was satisfied that application for superdari moved on September 20, 2004 was forged and was moved to defraud the Court. Part of the forgery was committed outside the Court and part of the offence was committed in the Court. The matter was thus reported to the police for registration of a case. On the basis of the written complaint received from the Magistrate, the police had registered a case against the petitioner. He was also charge-sheeted for having committed offence under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC by CJM, Rohtak, on September 15, 2005. The proceedings have been challenged, inter-alia on the ground that the charge of forgery of the document presented in the Court would fall under the provisions of Section 196 and 340 Cr.P.C. as such FIR could not have been registered. The Magistrate should have filed a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and it was the competent Court of Judicial Magistrate who could have taken the cognizance of the offence. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, a plea has been taken that forgery of the document presented in the Court had been committed outside the Court but later on the documents were presented in the Court as such the bar of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. will not be applicable. When the Court had given a notice to the petitioner he admitted that the signatures of Naveen Kumar had been put by him as such it is prima facie apparent that he had defrauded the Court intentionally. In the reply it has been stated that the case is pending the Court of ACJM, Rohtak and is now fixed for evidence. Crl. Misc. No. M-18765 of 2008 [4] Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Paras Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1995 Crl. L.J. 1603 wherein Paras Ram had filed a suit against some defendants but he got the fake signatures of the defendants on the vakalatnama and was successful in getting ex-parte decree. The other party had filed an application under Sections 340 and 195 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Sub Judge, Karnal, where the civil suit was pending. The Court felt that the identity of the persons who fabricated the signatures of the defendants could not be ascertained except by the investigation made by the police as such the application was sent by Court to Police Station City Karnal. The S.I. registered the case on the basis of said complaint. The sole question which was required to be determined in that case was whether an application moved by a private party under Sections 340 and 195 Cr.P.C. could be sent to the police for registration of a case or that the Court could take cognizance of offence mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. except on the complaint in writing of the Court where the forged documents were produced in the evidence. In the said case, without there being any preliminary enquiry in the complaint the FIR was ordered to be registered. The Single Bench of this Court held that the lodging of FIR was an abuse of the process of the law as such the FIR was quashed, holding that the application under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. could not have been sent to the police for registration of a case and investigation. The FIR in said case was held to be in derogation of the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. as such the same was quashed. Crl. Misc. No. M-18765 of 2008 [5] The main distinction in Paras Ram’s case (supra) and the present case is that the petitioner in this case has forged a document outside the Court but is alleged to have later on presented the document in the Court. Besides this, the charge was framed against the petitioner on September 15, 2005. He had filed the petition for quashing in the year 2008, in the month of May i.e. after a lapse of about 3 years. It is not apparent from the order of framing of charges that any argument was raised regarding the bar of taking of cognizance by the trial Court. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked after an unexplained delay by concealing the status of the trial. In the present case, disputed question of fact is required to be examined before the trial Court whether the document has been forged outside the Court and presented in the Court subsequently or the document was forged during the course of judicial proceedings. The plea that cognizance had wrongly been taken is always open to the petitioner to be taken before the trial Court. It will be open to the trial Court to consider the entire facts and circumstances of this case and in case the trial Court arrives at a conclusion that cognizance has been taken contrary to the provisions of law, the acquittal order can always be passed on the ground of any patent illegalities vitiating the proceedings. All the pleas taken up before this Court can always be taken up by the petitioner before the trial Court and it is not deemed appropriate to exercise inherent jurisdiction after an inordinate delay of about 3 years. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with an observation that nothing said in this order Crl. Misc. No. M-18765 of 2008 [6] will prejudice the rights of the petitioner before the trial Court. Since the matter is pending for the last four years, a direction is issued that the trial Court will conclude the trial within a period of not more than one year after the receipt of a certified copy of this order. July 1, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE