Case Note & Summary
The case arises from two criminal complaints filed by M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and another against Prasad Vassudev Keni and others under Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC for offences under Sections 191 and 192 IPC. The appellants and respondents had a business relationship since 1990, but disputes led to four civil suits filed by the appellants and one suit filed by the late V.G. Quenim, which was withdrawn unconditionally. The appellants alleged that the respondents gave false evidence and forged debit notes and books of accounts in those proceedings. The complaints were initially filed before the Sessions Judge, who returned them stating they could only be filed before the court where proceedings were pending. The complaints were then filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. After depositions, the appellants sought conversion of the complaints into private complaints relying on Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah. The Magistrate converted them and issued process under Sections 191, 192, and 193 IPC. The respondents filed revisions, arguing that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC applied and the procedure under Section 340 CrPC was mandatory. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revisions, quashing the complaints, holding that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) was attracted and Iqbal Singh Marwah was distinguishable as it concerned Section 195(1)(b)(ii). The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The Supreme Court upheld the quashing, holding that the offences alleged fell under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, which requires a complaint by the court, and the private complaint was not maintainable. The court distinguished Iqbal Singh Marwah, noting it applied to cases under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) where documents were forged before production in court. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Prosecution for Offences Against Public Justice - Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC - Bar on taking cognizance except on complaint in writing of the court - Offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 228 IPC when committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court - The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) is attracted when the offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court. The procedure under Section 340 CrPC is mandatory and must be followed before cognizance can be taken. (Paras 9-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Private Complaint - Conversion from Complaint under Section 340 CrPC - Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah - Distinction between Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) - The ratio in Iqbal Singh Marwah applies to cases under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) where the document is alleged to have been forged before its production in court. For offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i), the bar remains and the procedure under Section 340 CrPC must be followed. (Paras 11-12) C) Indian Penal Code - False Evidence - Sections 191, 192 IPC - Offences relating to giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence - When such offences are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to judicial proceedings, the complaint must be by the court under Section 340 CrPC. (Paras 1-4) D) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Quashing of Complaint - High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC - The High Court may exercise suo moto powers if injustice is found, but in this case, the complaints were correctly quashed as the procedure under Section 340 CrPC was not followed. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a private complaint is maintainable for offences under Sections 191 and 192 IPC when such offences are alleged to have been committed in relation to judicial proceedings, or whether the procedure under Section 340 CrPC must be followed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the quashing of the complaints. The court held that the offences alleged fell under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, which requires a complaint in writing by the court, and the private complaint was not maintainable. The procedure under Section 340 CrPC was mandatory and had not been followed.
Law Points
- Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC
- Section 340 CrPC
- Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah
- private complaint
- forgery
- false evidence
- judicial proceedings
