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

3. The complainant-appellant in this appeal is the General Manager of SNP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. while respondents 2, 3 and 4 were during the relevant period working with M/s Gorden Woodroff Limited (for short GWL) as legal advisers/Senior Managers. GWL has, it appears, filed O.S. No.169 of 2008 before the District Court, Chengalpattu seeking a decree for declaration of its title qua 11.75 acres of land situated at Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram in the State of Tamil Nadu. In support of its claim of ownership over the suit property GWL appears to be placing reliance upon two sale deeds one dated 10th March, 1922 (document No.1551 of 1922) and the other dated 27th June, 1922 (document No.1575 of 1922). SNP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. who claims to be in actual physical possession of the suit property in the meantime appears to have approached the Sub-Registrars office at Saidapet to verify the genuineness of the two sale deeds relied upon by GWL. Verification revealed that both the sale deeds in question pertained to transactions between some private parties and had no connection whatsoever with GWL. The Sub-Registrar also informed the complainant that there was no transaction during the year 1922 in respect of the subject lands at Jameen Pallavaram4. It was on the basis of the above information that the complainant filed a complaint against the respondents alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of theIPC. Crime No.41/10 was accordingly registered in the Central Crime Branch, Chennai Suburban, St. Thomas Mount for the said offences against respondents 2, 3 and 4. Aggrieved, the respondents filed Criminal O.P. No.15917 of 2010 for quashing of the FIR as also investigation in connection therewith which petition was heard and allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Madras by an order dated 15th February, 2011 quashing registration of the case as also the proceedings based on the same. The High Court called in aid two precise reasons for doing so. Firstly, the High Court held that the allegations made in the complaint even if accepted in their entirety did not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the respondents herein. Secondly, the High Court held that no Court could, in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C., take cognizance of offences in question except on a complaint in writing made by the court or the public servant concerned. The present appeal assails the correctness of the said order passed, as already noticed above.

Reasoning: 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.