Lakhpati vs Ram Lakhan and Others

J. C. Mishra, J.—This revision has been filed by the complainant challenging the order dated 17244 passed by Munsif MagislrateII Gorakhpur dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complaint is barred by Section 195 (1)(h) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the accused setting up an imposter got the sale deed executed and registered in her name on 3495 and they thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the witnesses as also of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and decided the case by the impugned order. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that since the alleged forged sale deed was filed in the mutation proceedings the complaint could be filed by the said Court as required only by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P.C. Therefore, he dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused.

Heard Sri Tarun Verma, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the record.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that since the alleged forged deed was executed when no proceeding was pending in the mutation Court the mischief of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P.C. was not attracted. He contended that at the time of the alleged forgery the accused were not party in the mutation proceedings. This contention is devoid of any force. Section 195 (l)(b)(ii) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, 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, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. This provision does not require that the proceedings must be pending on the date of the alleged offence. Obviously, a document cannot be produced or given in evidence in a proceeding before it is executed. If the argument advanced by the learned Counsel is accepted the provisions of Section 195 (l)(b)(ii) would become meaningless and can not be applied to any case. This provision was enacted on a sound principle that if a document, with respect to which the offences referred to in the aforesaid clause are committed, is produced in evidence in a proceeding in any court, that very Court should consider the propriety of the instituting a complaint. The complaint by any person other than the Court is barred.

The order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality and, therefore, calls for no interference.

The revision is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.