Case: C.P.Subhash Vs. Insp.Of Police Chennai

of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code... 9. Decisions of this Court in V.Y. Jose and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2009) 3 SCC 78 and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley etc. (2011) 3 SCC 351 reiterate the above legal position. 10. Coming to the case at hand it cannot be said that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence or that the same do not prima facie allege the complicity of the persons accused of committing the same. The complaint filed by the appellant sets out the relevant facts and alleges that the documents have been forged and fabricated only to be used as genuine to make a fraudulent and illegal claim over the land owned by complainant. The following passage from the complaint is relevant in this regard: .....Thus evidently these two sale deeds being produced by GWL i.e. 1551/1922 dated: 10th March 1922 and 1575/1922 dated 27th June 1922 are forged and fabricated and after making the false documents they were used as genuine to make fraudulent and illegal claim over our lands and go grab them. The representatives of GWL Properties with dishonest motive of grabbing our lands having indulged in committing forgery and fabrication of documents and with the aid of the forged documents are constantly attempting to criminally trespass into our lawful possessed lands and have been threatening and intimidating the staffs of our company in an illegal manner endangering life and damaging the land. The representatives of GWL properties also have been making false statements to the Government Revenue Authorities by producing these forged and fabricated documents with dishonest intention to enter their name in the Government Records. The present Director-in-charge and responsible for the affairs of the GWL Properties Limited is Mrs. V.M. Chhabria and all the above mentioned acts and commission of offences have been committed with the knowledge of the Directors of GWL Properties Ltd., and connivance for which they are liable. Mr. A.V.L. Ramprasad Varma representing M/s GWL Properties Limited has registered a civil suit in the District Court, Chengalpet using the forged documents. Mr. Satish, Manager (Legal), Mr. Shanmuga Sundram, Senior Manager, (Administration), have assisted in fabricating the forged documents and used the same to get patta from Tahsildar, Tambaram, thus cheating the Govt. Officials. Hence we request you to register the complaint and to investigate and take action in accordance with law as against the said company M/s GWL Property Limited represented by Mr. Satish, Manager (Legal) Mr. Shanmudga Sundaram, Senior Manager (Administration), A.V.L. Ramprasad Varma, Directors, and their accomplice who have connived and indulged in fabricating and forging documents for the purpose of illegally grabbing our lands and for all other offences committed by them. 11. Equally untenable is the view taken by the High Court that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) could be attracted to the case at hand. In Iqbal Singh Marwahs case (supra) a Constitution Bench of this Court had authoritatively declared that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was 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 evidencein any court and during the time the same was in custodia legis. This Court while taking that view approved the ratio of an earlier decision in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 493 where this Court held: 12. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the court records. xx xx xx xx 23. The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court. 12. Mr. Venugopal was, therefore, correct in contending that the bar contained in Section 195 against taking of cognizance was not attracted to the case at hand as the sale deeds relied upon by GWL for claiming title to the property in question had not been forged while they were in custodia legis. 13. In the light of the above, the High Court was wrong in quashing the FIR on the ground that the allegations did not constitute an offence even when the same were taken to be true in their entirety. It was also, in our view, wrong for the High Court to hold that the respondents were not the makers of the documents or that the filing of a civil suit based on the same would not constitute an offence. Whether or not the respondents had forged the documents and if so what offence was committed by the respondents was a matter for investigation which could not be prejudged or quashed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. Coming to the case at hand it cannot be said that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence or that the same do not prima facie allege the complicity of the persons accused of committing the same. The complaint filed by the appellant sets out the relevant facts and alleges that the documents have been forged and fabricated only to be used as genuine to make a fraudulent and illegal claim over the land owned by complainant11. Equally untenable is the view taken by the High Court that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) could be attracted to the case at hand. In Iqbal Singh Marwahs case (supra) a Constitution Bench of this Court had authoritatively declared that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was 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 evidencein any court and during the time the same was in custodia legis12. Mr. Venugopal was, therefore, correct in contending that the bar contained in Section 195 against taking of cognizance was not attracted to the case at hand as the sale deeds relied upon by GWL for claiming title to the property in question had not been forged while they were in custodia legis13. In the light of the above, the High Court was wrong in quashing the FIR on the ground that the allegations did not constitute an offence even when the same were taken to be true in their entirety. It was also, in our view, wrong for the High Court to hold that the respondents were not the makers of the documents or that the filing of a civil suit based on the same would not constitute an offence. Whether or not the respondents had forged the documents and if so what offence was committed by the respondents was a matter for investigation which could not be prejudged or quashed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.