Krishnanand Sharma and Others vs State of Bihar and Another

Mridula Mishra, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioners, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 the complainant. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.9.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Munger in Complaint Case No. 604C/2006 whereby cognizance has been taken for offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and the summons have been issued against the petitioners.

Petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance on the ground that filing of the complaint by opposite party no. 2 itself is not maintainable as the offence is punishable u/s 471 and there is specific bar u/s 195(1) (b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The complaint can be filed by the public servant or the local authority when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced for evidence in Court.

Counsel appearing for the complainant opposite party placed reliance on a decision in the case of Sachida Nand Singh and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another, wherein it has been held that if the forgery has been committed while the document was produced in Court, then prosecution can be launched if complaint made by the court. If forgery was committed with a document which has not been produced in court then the prosecution can be launched at the instance of any person. Considering the decision relied upon by opposite party no. 2 I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly this application is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not effect the merit of Title Suit No. 48 of 2002 which is being contested in between the parties.