(2017] l l S.C.R. 214

SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RIICO LTD.

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

(CriminalAppealNo. 1845 of2017)

NOVEMBER 03, 2017

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J

Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 467, 478 and 471 - FIR registered by appellant alleging forgery of the letter in question and fraud by Respondent No.2 - Final report filed stating that since the said let/er was filed in a civil suit filed by Respondent No.2, thus, in view of provisions ofs.195(/)(h)(ii) CrPC. the police ca11not investigate the matter - Such fi11al report accepted by Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) -Afier some litigation between the parties wherein the matter was remanded back by Revisional Court-Additional Sessions Judge

(ASJ). CJM eve11tually vidc order dated 20.06.2009 co11sidered the matter on merits and held that prima facic 110 case offorging and playing ji-aud were made out against the accused-Respondent No.2

- Revision application filed by the appellant before ASJ, dismissed

- Said order was challenged by appella11t before High Court by E .filing petition u!s.482, CrPC. which was dismissed - On appeal,

held: CJM in his order dated 20.06.09 as well as the Revisional Co11rt had considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that 110 prima facie case was made 011t against the accused that he has committed any forge1:v or played any fraud- High Court also took the sa111e vie1v that no evidence H-'as available on recor(J F suggesting that letter i11 q11estio11 was prepared by Respo11dent No. 2 - No infirmity found in the said order - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.195(/)(b)(ii) and 482.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195(/)(b)(ii) - If applicable - Held: Sec/ion 195(/){b){ii) would be attracted only G .when /he offe/ll:es enumera/ed in lhe said provision have been

commiued with respect to a document a.fier it has been produced or giFen in eviclence in a proceecling in an.v court - Ho"•ever. in the instant case. the allegedly forged letter dtd. JIJ.()4.1992 was flied in a civil suit on 27.04.1992 - No case that forgery was committed

H 214

SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RHCO LTD. v. THE STATE OF 215

RAJASTHAN & ANR.

ajier the letter was flied in the court - Tims, provision u/:S.195 A (J)(b)(ii) was not attracted. ·

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I In the 11rescnt case, the letter dated 10.04.1992 is claimed to be a forged"letter not signed by appellant. The said letter was tiled before the Court on 27.04.1992 in a civil suit filed B by the respondent no.2. There is no case that forgery was committed after the letter was tiled in the Court. Thus, provision under Section 195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was not attracted. [Para 9] (219- FJ

1.2 The Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated C 20.06.2009 as well as the Revisional Court had considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that no prima fi1cie case was made out against the accused that he had commitled any forgery or played any fraud in forging the document. The said order of the Revisional Court was challenged before the High D Court and High Court also came to the conclusion that no evidence was available on record to suggest that letter dated 10.04.1992 was prepared by Respondent No. 2. The High Court held that no illegality can be found in the order of Revisional Court. No infirmity is found in the said view of the High Court [Paras 12,

131(221-D, GJ E

Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihw & Anr.

(1998) 2 SCC 493 : (1998) l SCR 492 - referred to.

Iqbal Singh Manvah & Am: v. Meenakshi Marwah & A11r. (2005) 4 SCC 370 : [2005] 2 SCR 708followed.

[ 1998] I SCR 492

(2005) 2 SCR 708

Case Law Reference

referred to

followed

Para 3

Paras

CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTJON: Criminal Appeal No.

G 1845 of2017.

From the J uclgment and Order dated 07. 02.2017 by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 320/2012.

A Dr. Manish Sighvi, IrshadAhmad, Shailja Nanda Mishra, Advs. for

the Appellant.

Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Bhavya Tandon, Ajay Kumar Talesara, S. Sarfaraz Karim, Tejasvi Kumar, Ambar Qamaruddin, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ASHOK BHUSHAN J. 1. This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 07.02.2017 of Rajasthan High Court dismissing Single

Bench Criminal Miscellaneous Petition which was filed by the appellant questioning the judgment dated 22.07 .20 l l of Additional Sessions Judge C dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the appellant.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal disclose several stages of litigation arising out ofFirst Information Repo1t lodged by appellant dated 29.04.1992 under Section 420 !PC.

3. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal arc:

A letter dated 10.04.1992 was purported to be issued by Regional Manager, RIICO, Sriganganagar to the Respondent No. 2 Mis. Kanha Refined Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. through Ravi Setia(Partner). The E appellant who was working as Regional Managerand had allegedly signed the above letter when came to know about the letter dated L0.04.1992, he asked Respondent No. 2 on 23.04.1992 to produce the original copy of the letter within 24 hours. The letter was not produced before the office of Respondent No. 2 rather on 27 .04.1992 the letter was produced

F by his counsel in Suit Case No. 2/84 titled M/s. Kanha Refined Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. Vs. RIICO Limited. On 29.04.1992 the appellant filed a First Information Report No. 184 under Section 420 !PC alleging that on I 0.04.1992 a letter has been forged by Respondent No. 2 and got it dispatched from the office by a Class JV employee, Raghuvir Singh on 10.04.1992. It is alleged that by playing fraud, forged and bogus G document has been prepared by Respondent No. 2 hence, offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC arc made out. FIR was registered under Section 420. A Final Report was submitted by the Inspector, Police Station Kotwali. In the Final Report, it was mentioned that since the letter dated

I0.04.1992 has been filed in Case No. 2/84, in view of provisions of Section !95(1)(b){ii) Cr.P.C. the po, lice cannot investigate the matter.

The Final Report was accepted by the ChiefJudicial Magistrate by order A dated 22.05.1998, relying on Section 195(1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The appellant filed a Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge who vide his order dted 01.05.2000 set aside the orderofChiefJudicial Magistrate and remanded the matter. The Trial Court passed a fresh order granting opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The Chief Judicial Magistrate afterthc remand again relying on Section I 95(1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. held that letter having been filed in civil suit, cognizance cannot be taken. The Protest Petition was dismissed and Final Report was accepted. The Criminal Revision was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 12.03.2003. The Rcvisional Court held that the provision of Section

195( I )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

The Revisional Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bil1ar &Anr., (1998) 2 sec 493, where it was held that when the document before producing

in the Court has been prepared in a forged manner, provision of Section

195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. cannot be made applicable. The Revisional Court set aside the order of subordinate court and directed the court below to D pass an order in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence available on file.

4. Operative portion of the judgment is as follows:

"ORDER

Hence, by allowing the Revision of the Revisionist, the order dated 12.03.:!003 is hereby set-aside and Subordinate Court is hereby ordered that it shalt pass an order afresh in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence available on file and after granting opportunity of hearing lo the

Complainant. The Case File shall be produced before the- Subordinate Court on 08.08.2003."

5. After the order ofRcvisional Com1, the Chief Judicial Magistrate again considered the matter and by order dated 20.06.2009 rejected the Protest Petition of appellant. The ChicfJudicial Magistrate noticed the order of the Revisional Court that benefit of Section 195( l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. can not be granted to the accused in the present case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not rely on Section 195( 1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. rather looking to the materials on record came to the conclusion that prima facie case of forged document and playing fraud have not been made out against the

accused. Aggrieved against the order dated 20.06.2009, a Rcv1S10n Application was also filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge by the appellant which has been dismissed on 22.07.20 l l. The order dated 22.07.2011 was challenged before the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by the High Court on 07.02.2017 which order is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Dr. Manish Singhvi. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case the forged letter dated 10.04. l 992 was filed in Civil Court on 27.04.l 992 that is subsequent to letter having been forged.

The provisions of Section l95(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. were not attracted and there was no prohibition in law in taking cognizance of the offence. He submitted that the Respondent No. 2 was the beneficiary of the letter which was addre'8cd to him hence the cou11s below ought to have taken cognizance of the offence. He submitted that Courts below committed error in not taking cognizance of the offonce.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 refuting the submission of counsel for the appellant contended that present is a case where there is no issue pertaining to Section 195( I )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. He submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 20.06.2009 has not dismissed the Protest Petition on the ground of bar of Section l 95( l )(b )(ii) Cr.P.C. rather has after considering the cvi<kncc on record held that no primafi1cie case has been made out against the Respondent Nci. 2 for taking cognizance of the offoncc. He further submitted that from the evidence on record, it is clear that letter was dispatched from the ot1iec of Regional Manager and it has further come on record that a Class IV employee Shri Raghl1vir Singh of the office has dispatched the letter. He submitted that there is no material on record to even prima facie suggest that the Respondent No. 2 is involved in forging the letter. He submitted that the courts below after considering the materials have rightly come to the conclusion that no case has been made out lo allow the Protest Petition filed by the appellant.

8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for G the parties and have perused the record. In so far as, submission of the appellant regarding Section 195( l ){b)(ii) Cr.P.C. the law is not well settled by the Constitution Bench judgment that Section 195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it

SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RJ!CO LTD. v. THE STATE OF 219

RAJASTHAN & ANR. [ASHOK BHUSHAN. J.]

has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.

A The Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwall & A11r. Vs. Jl.feenakshi Marwall & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370 in para 33 & 34 had held:

"33. Jn view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion thal Sachida Nand Singh (1998) 2 SCC 493 has been correclly decided and /he view U1ken therein is the correct B

vietti Section J9j(J)(b)(ii) CrPC would be affrac1ed only when the ojJences e11un1eratecl in the said 11rovision have been commitled with respect to a document ajier 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 leg1:s.

34. Jn the present case, the Will has been produced in the court subseq11e11//y. It is nob01v :~ case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195(/)(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the said Will after if had been produced or filed in the

Coun of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b) (ii) CrPC would not come inlo play and there is no embargo on the po1i, er of the corm to take cognizance of the offence on !he basis of the complaint filed by the respondents.

The view taken by the leC1med Additional Sessions Judge C111d the High Court is pe1fectly correct and cC1ils for no

interj'erence.,,

9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, present is a case where letter dated l 0.04.1992 is claimed to be a forged letter not signed

by appellant. From the materials on record, it is clear that the said letter dated ] 0.04.1992 was filed before the Court on 27.04.1992 in Case No. 2/84. There is no case that forge1y was committed after the letter was F filed in the Court. Thus, provision under Section 195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was not attracted. A perusal of the Final Report which was submitted by Inspector, Police Station Kotwali, it is clear that the Inspector after conducting an investigation ultimately concluded that in view of Section

195(1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. Police cannot investigate the matter. The Final Report is filed as Anncxure P.4. A perusal of which also indicates that the G Inspector, obtained the Original Letter dated l 0.04.1992 from the Case No. 2/84 and had sent writing of the undisputed script and specimen script of appellant to handwriting expert and opinion was obtained that signatures of S.K. Shanna on letter dated 10.04. 1992 was forged.

l 0. After the remand by Revisional Court on 01.05.2000, the Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 12.03.2003 again relied on Section 195( I )(b )(ii) Cr.P.C. for coming to the conclusion that cognizance cannot be taken. Criminal Revision was filed against the said order before the Revisional Court and Revisional Court vide its judgment dated 21.07 .2003 has decided the issue of Section 195( I )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The Revisional Court held that the provisions of Section 195(1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. arc not attracted. The Revisional Court vide its order dated 21.07.2003 set aside the order of Subordinate Court and directed the Subordinate Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the evidence on file on merit. Subsequent the order passed by the Rcvisional Comt, matter was not carried on any further for the accused. Thus, the issue of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. came to an end in favour of the appellant. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 20.06.2009 as well as the Revisional Court dated 22.07.2011. does not rely on Section 195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. for rejecting the Protest Petition of the appellant.

Thus, the submission on the basis of Section 195( l )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. arc not relevant for deciding the present appeal. In fact submission raised on behalf of the complainant pertaining to non-applicability of Section

195( 1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. has been accepted by the Courts below as already noted above. Thus, no benefit can be availed by appellant on the strength of above submission.

11. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 20.06.2009 as well as the Rcvisional Court has considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that no pri111aj£1cie case is made out against the accused that he has committed any forgery or played any fraud in forging th<' document. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has also referred to the Rcpoit No. 37/97. The Revisional Court also after considering all the submissions of appellant have dismissed the Revision on merits. It is useful to refer to the following observations ofRcvisional Court:

.. According to the aforesaid offensive elemenls !he Revisionist during the course of investigation in his statemen/s recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. has onZv stated that Ravi Selia in order to play fraud prepared !he letter by commitling forger;\ whereas the Junior Accounlanl Alar Singh in the office of the Revisionist has slated during his statements dated 19.05.1992 that the alleged letter dated 10.04.1992 has not been dispatched by him, rather it has been dispatched by the

Assistant Employee Raghuvir Singh. In this way in the context A of the writing ~[said lette1; it was necessary to send the writing of the Class JV Employee Raghuvir Singh to the Handwriting Expert at FSL. Further. the FSL in its Report No. 37197 dated 31.01.1998 has given this conclusion that the specimen signatures f the Revisionist and disputed signat11res 11pon B matching mark Q-1 and Q-2 have been stated to be forged one. But in this conclusion it has also been mentioned that it has not been established as to these signatures are of whom and these signatures would have made by Ravi Selia. In this way letter the letter dated 10.04.1992 would have prepared by the Respondent No. 2 in a forged manner, at this stage, it has not become clear in any manner. Therefore, at this stage, there is no ground available for taking cognizance against the Respondent No. 2 under Section 467, 468 and 471 l.P.C."

12. The above orderof the Revisional Court was challenged before the High Court and High Court also came to the conclusion that no evidence is available on record to suggest that letter dated I 0.04.1992 wi\s prepared by Respondent No. 2. The High Court held that no illegality can be found in the order ofRevisional Court. Although, the Final Report was submitted as noted above on the ground relying on Section l 95(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. but before submitting the report investigation was conducted by the Inspector. Police Station Kotwali and the materials colh!ctcd during the investigation were all referred to in the Final Report.

Holding that the Section 195(1 )(b )(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the present case, the Revision al Court vide its judgment dated 21.07 .2003 has directed the court below to pass an order in accordance with law on the basis of evidence available. Hence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate looked into the materiml on record and came to conclusion that there are no sufficient material for taking cognizance against the accused.

J 3. High Court also took the same view, in which we do not find any infirmity. In view of the forgoing discussion, we do not find any

merit in tihis appeal. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.

Divya Pandey AppeaJ dismissd.