Aggrieved Party Against Whom If Forged Or Fabricated Document Is Made Use Of In A Court Of Law Can File Criminal Complaint: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court in a forgery case, held that an aggrieved party against whom if forged or fabricated document is made use of in a Court of law would have a right to file a criminal complaint as regards such forgery and fabrication the bar under Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., does not apply.
The court added that the Court before which a forged document is produced can also take action against such a person under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Court held thus in a criminal petition preferred against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 419, 423, 415, 417, 465, 471, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, "The Court before which forged document is produced could also take action against such a person under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., both the prosecution by the private party under regular criminal law and the prosecution by the Court would not amount to double jeopardy."
Advocate Sanket M. Yenagi appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate Karan Khivesra appeared on behalf of the respondent.
In this case, the petitioner sought quashing of proceedings pending against her. She was aggrieved by the order of the Additional Civil Judge by which cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 423, 415, 417, 465, 471, and 468 of IPC. It was a case in which a document was allegedly forged outside the court and made use of in a suit.
The following points arose for consideration before the High Court –
1. Whether merely because of an allegedly forged document is used in a Court proceeding the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C would come into operation or could a complaint be filed by the aggrieved party before the Police Station alleging the fabrication and forgery of documents or could both actions be taken?
2. Whether in the present case, the complainant would have a locus to file a complaint since, the allegation is that a forgery has occurred in respect of site No.6 whereas the complainant is the owner of site No.4?
3. Whether the withdrawal of the suit in OS No.209/2015 by the petitioner which according to the complainant was cause of action for filing the complaint require this Court to quash the criminal proceedings?
While dealing with the first point, the Court held that an aggrieved party against whom if forged or fabricated document is made use of in a Court of law, would have a right to file a criminal complaint as regards such forgery and fabrication the bar under Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, does not apply.
While answering the second point, the Court said, “Respondent against whom said document is used can always complain about and seek for action being taken as regards a document which has been forged or fabricated. … Thus, I answer point No.2 by holding that respondent would have locus to file a complaint against the petitioner, as regards the forgery of the documents which was used against respondent.”
In view of the third point, the Court noted that there being serious allegations made against the petitioner as regards the forgery of documents and the use of such forged documents against respondent. It added that the dates would have to be considered in the proper prosecutive.
The Court held, “The sequence of events as aforestated would lead to the only conclusion that a forged document has been used against respondent, respondent is well within his rights for initiating action against such forged document having been used. … Hence, I answer point No.3 by holding that the withdrawal of the suit in OS No.209/2015 filed by the petitioner which formed the cause of action for filing the complaint would not automatically result in the quashing of the criminal proceedings.”
“Documents having been forged, a suit was filed on 24.11.2014, service having been affected in the suit, the respondent filed a complaint on 7.12.2015, thereafter the petitioner filed a present petition on 11.12.2017. Finally, after obtaining order of stay in the present proceedings on 14.12.2019 the suit came to be withdrawn”, it also said.
The Court enunciated that merely because the suit was withdrawn would not take away the fact of forgery or use of forged document against the respondent and this aspect would have to be dealt with by the Trial Court and the necessary finding to be given in relation thereto.
“The fact however remains that the suit was withdrawn nearly four years after the filing of the complaint. Thus, even for the said four years the petitioner continued to keep complaint pending, despite having filed the above petition in the year 2017. … Thus, now it is cannot be heard to say that the respondent has no locus and/or because petitioner has withdrawn the suit the above petition is required to be allowed and objection on part of the respondent be rejected”, it remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Vasanthi v. Umesh G.D. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:16162)
