Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr Vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005

Posted on June 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is an important judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court on a contention point as documented in Para 5,

5. The principal controversy revolves round the interpretation of the expression “when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court” occurring in clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Simply put, if a document is forged before being submitted in a court, there is no bar to file a complaint on the accused of the forgery under clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

A Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence,
(b) upon a police report of such facts, and
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

From a victim standpoint who is facing an offender of forgery, thereafter in this case, the respondents moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to file a criminal complaint against appellant no.1 as the will set up by him was forged.

From Paras 23-26, very valuable aspect is explained ‘expedient in the interests of justice‘:

23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded.
24. There is another consideration which has to be kept in mind. Sub-section (1) of Section 340 CrPC contemplates holding of a preliminary enquiry. Normally, a direction for filing of a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceeding before the court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded and the final judgment is rendered. Section 341 provides for an appeal against an order directing filing of the complaint. The hearing and ultimate decision of the appeal is bound to take time. Section 343(2) confers a discretion upon a court trying the complaint to adjourn the hearing of the case if it is brought to its notice that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen. In view of these provisions, the complaint case may not proceed at all for decades specially in matters arising out of civil suits where decisions are challenged in successive appellate fora which are time-consuming. It is also to be noticed that there is no provision of appeal against an order passed under Section 343(2), whereby hearing of the case is adjourned until the decision of the appeal. These provisions show that, in reality, the procedure prescribed for filing a complaint by the court is such that it may not fructify in the actual trial of the offender for an unusually long period. Delay in prosecution of a guilty person comes to his advantage as witnesses become reluctant to give evidence and the evidence gets lost. This important consideration dissuades us from accepting the broad interpretation sought to be placed upon clause (b)(ii).
25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large.
26. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is rarely adopted. It will not be fair and proper to give an interpretation which leads to a situation where a person alleged to have committed an offence of the type enumerated in clause (b)(ii) is either not placed for trial on account of non-filing of a complaint or if a complaint is filed, the same does not come to its logical end. Judging from such an angle will be in consonance with the principle that an unworkable or impracticable result should be avoided.

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr Vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005

Citations : [2005 AIR SC 2119], [2005 SCR 2 708], [2005 JT 3 195], [2005 SCALE 3 93], [2005 AIOL 135], [2005 MHLJ SC 3 530], [2005 BOMCR CRI SC 2 470], [2005 SCC 4 370], [2005 SUPREME 2 549], [2005 CRLJ SC 2161], [2005 SCC CRI 1101]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/618763/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae13e4b0149711412e0a

https://mynation.net/docs/402-2005/

https://www.insaafindia.in/judgements/misc/iqbal-singh-marwah-vs-meenakshi-marwah-forgery/

Baban Singh And Anr Vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 February, 1966

Posted on June 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court here in this excellent judgment that,

Section 191 and 192 IPC deal with perjury and filing of false affidavit in pleadings would be covered under Section 191. Section 191 deals with evidence on oath and Section 192 with fabricating false affidavits; the offence under Section 191 IPC is constituted by swearing falsely when one is bound by oath to state the truth because a declaration made under an oath. The definition of the offence of giving false evidence thus applies to the affidavits.
The offence may also fall within Section 192 which, inter alia, lays down that a person is said to fabricate false evidence if he makes a document containing a false statement intending that such false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding and so appearing in evidence may cause any person who, in such proceedings is to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceedings.
Therefore, where declarations in affidavits which were tendered in the Court to be taken into consideration, the authors of the affidavit clearly intended the statement to appear in evidence in a judicial proceedings and so appearing, to cause the Court to entertain an erroneous opinion regarding the compromise, therefore, the offence would fall within Section 191, 192 which is punishable under Section 193 IPC, therefore, it was held that the authors of the affidavits were guilty of offence of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in judicial proceedings.

Baban Singh And Anr Vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 February, 1966

Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India on 25 January 1978

Posted on June 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The landmark judgment from Apex Court which held that any law that deprives the life and liberty must be just and fair.

The composition of the Bench is

BENCH:
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ)
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
BHAGWATI, P.N.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
UNTWALIA, N.L.
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
KAILASAM, P.S.

Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978

Citation: [1978 AIR 597], [1978 SCR (2) 621], [1978 SCC (1) 248]

Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/

List of other case laws around Article 21 are here.

Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddi on 12 November, 1987

Posted on June 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Supreme Court judgment, Dowry demand by husband and his parents was regarded as causing cruelty on knife and thereby granted divorce decree under section 13 (1) of HMA.

Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddi on 12 November, 1987

Rukmini Narvekar Vs Vijay Sataredkar & Ors on 3 October, 2008

Posted on June 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another awesome judgment emphasizing that “there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as are indicated in Section 227 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration by the learned magistrate at that stage”.

Justice Markandey Katju notes:

As observed by this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani & Anr AIR 2004 SC 4778, observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s formula nor as provisions of the statute. Thus in our opinion while it is true that ordinarily defense material cannot be looked into by the Court while framing of the charge in view of D.N. Padhi’s case (supra), there may be some very rare and exceptional cases where some defense material when shown to the trial court would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very rare cases the defense material can be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance.
18. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defense at the time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in very rare cases, i.e. where the defense produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. We agree with Shri Lalit that in some very rare cases the Court is justified in looking into the material produced by the defense at the time of framing of the charges, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous or concocted.

Justice Altamas Kabir notes:

In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as are indicated in Section 227 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration by the learned magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi’s case (supra) by the larger Bench to which the very same question had been referred.

Rukmini Narvekar Vs Vijay Sataredkar & Ors on 3 October, 2008

State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004

Posted on June 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A key question is clarified by the 3-judge bench of Supreme Court in this landmark judgment.

Can the trial court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused?

The scope of Sections 227 and 228 and scope of Sections 239 and 240 are explained along with scope of Sections 482

At the end the following is the summary arrived at.

Under Sections 227 and 228, a Magistrate of the trial court, is supposed to consider only the material sent by prosecution along with the record of the case and the documents sent along with it, at the time of framing of the charge. The accused at that stage has no right to place before the court any material.
Under Sections 239 and 240, requires the Magistrate to consider ‘the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173’ and, if necessary, examine the accused and after giving accused an opportunity of being heard, if the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, the accused is liable to be discharged by recording reasons thereof.
Regarding the argument of accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case. Under Section 482 of the Code, along with the petition the accused may file unimpeachable evidence of sterling quality and on that basis seek quashing.

Legal point around application under/of CrPC 91

In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document beingnecessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning andproduction is made and the party who makes it whether police or accused. If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can beissued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of policestation can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.

Final conclusion: (from Para 29)

We are of the view that jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Code when invoked by accused the necessity and desirability would have to be seen by the Court in the context of the purpose investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. It would also have to be borne in mind that law does not permit a roving or fishing inquiry. Regarding the argument of accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case.

State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004

Citations : [2005 AIR SC 359], [2005 ALT CRI 1 1198], [2005 CLT SC 99 348], [2005 GLH 1 312], [2004 JT SC 10 303], [2005 KLT SC 1 80], [2005 OLR SC 1 357], [2005 RLW SC 3 414], [2004 SCALE 10 50], [2005 SCC 1 568], [2005 SCC CRI 415], [2004 SLT 7 339], [2004 SUPREME 8 568], [2005 OCR 30 177], [2005 RCR CRI 1 297], [2005 CALCRILR 1 487], [2005 CRIMES SC 1 1], [2004 AIR SCW 6813], [2005 CTC SC 1 134]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7496/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae0be4b0149711412c9f

Index of Quash judgments u/s 482 are here.

Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful Judgment from our Supreme Court. See Hon’ble Apex Court has in detailed analyzed the contention of to quash or not to quash. This has become a landmark judgment which provides the below guidelines to quash/discharge.

Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/ complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/ complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

Read the way in which Justice J.S. Khehar has answered the above steps and finally quashed the High Court order to not discharge the accused.

Definitely a interesting read !!

Rajiv Thapar & Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

Citations: [2

Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In the judgment of Apex Court, a Quash order by the High Court is set aside.

Thus, we are of the considered view that the finding returned by the High Court suffers from an error of law. It has delved into the field of appreciation and evaluation of the evidence which is beyond the jurisdiction, either revisional or inherent, of the High Court under Sections 397 and 482 of the Code.

Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012

Citations: [2

Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 26 April 2000

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme court held that one should discourage the tendency to rope in all relations in dowry cases.

For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.

Kans Raj Vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 26 April, 2000

Citations: [2000 JT SC 5 223], [2000 ACR SC 2 1263], [2000 SCC CRI 0 935], [2000 EASTCRIC 2 698], [2000 RCR CRIMINALINAL 2 695], [2000 SCC CR 0 935], [2000 RCR CRI 2 696], [2000 SCC 5 207], [2000 RCR CRI 2 695], [2000 CCR 2 156], [2000 AIR SC 2324 1], [2000 PLJR 3 68], [2000 ALLMR CRI 0 1180], [2000 MLJ CRI 1 844], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 2 695], [2000 SLT 4 162], [2002 CLJ 0 2993], [2000 SCR 3 662], [2000 ACC 41 3], [2000 ALD CRI 2 467], [2002 SCC 5 207], [2000 CRI LJ 2993], [2000 LW CRL 2 660], [2000 JIC 2 353], [2000 AIR SC 0 2093], [2000 SRJ 10 330], [2000 ALD CRL 2 467], [2000 SCALE 3 429], [2000 KERLT 2 42], [2000 CRLLJ 2993], [2000 CRLJ 0 2993], [2000 RENTCR 2 695], [2000 AIR SC 2324], [2002 RCR CRIMINAL 2 695], [2000 JCRIC 2 665], [2000 DMC SC 1 645], [2000 SCC 5 2007], [2000 SUPREME 3 554], [2000 CRIMES 2 213]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1263837/

Taramani Parakh Vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 16 March, 2015

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment of Apex Court, Justice AK Goel held that there are allegation against accused in FIR which need to be dealt with during trial but quashing same by Hon’ble High Court is set aside.

Taramani Parakh vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 16 March, 2015

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr Vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005

Baban Singh And Anr Vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 February, 1966

Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India on 25 January 1978

Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddi on 12 November, 1987

Rukmini Narvekar Vs Vijay Sataredkar & Ors on 3 October, 2008

State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004

Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012

Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 26 April 2000

Taramani Parakh Vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 16 March, 2015