V.A. Padmanabhan and 3 others vs M.A. Narasimhan and 2 others

Rengasamy, J.—This petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure is to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner in Crime

No. 981 of 1992 on the file of the Inspector of Police, (Crimes) Triplicane, Madras-5 for the offences under Sections 464, 465 and 467 of Indian

Penal Code.

The Petitioner herein submits that the allegations in the complaint of the first Respondent would amount to the offences against the Court for

which the Court has to give the complaint u/s 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the complaint by the first Respondent is not

sustainable and is liable to be quashed.

The complaint of the first Respondent discloses that in a civil suit, C.S. No. 535 of 1992 on the file of this Court, a document has been filed by

the Petitioner herein for the purpose of obtaining injunction and he came to know that the said document is a forged one created for the purpose of

obtaining injunction. So, on the basis of this allegation that a forged document was created by the Petitioner, the complaint has been given against

the Petitioner in Crime No. 981/92 before the Inspector of Police, Triplicane, Madras-5.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner argues that the offences referred to u/s 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relate to the

offences against the Court for which unless the complaint was given in writing by the Court the cognizance cannot be taken and in this case, no

such complaint has been launched by the Court on whose file the document was received and therefore, the complaint is not sustainable.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner refers to a decision in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another, wherein

the Supreme Court has observed that in a proceedings of the Court, if a fabricated document has been produced not only for the purpose of being

tendered in evidence, but also for some other purpose that is sufficient for the complaint of the Court u/s 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In this case, the first Respondent had launched the complaint for the offences under Sections 464, 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code also and

according to the learned Counsel for the first Respondent as the offences under Sections 464 to 467of Indian Penal Code are not governed by

Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, there is chance to argue that no complaint is required in writing for initiating the proceedings in respect

of those offences. However, the learned Counsel concedes that in Gopalakrishna Menon and Another Vs. D. Raja Reddy and Another, the

Supreme Court has held that even though the complaint is u/s 467 of the Indian Penal Code, it is in respect of an offences described in Section

463, Indian Penal Code because Section 463, Indian Penal Code defines forgery and Section 467, Indian Penal Code punishes forgery of a

particular category and when such offences is committed in a proceedings in a Court, Section 195(1) Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted. The

principle is applicable for Sections 464 and 465 Indian Penal Code also as they are in relation to Section 463, Indian Penal Code. When it is

alleged that these offences have been committed in a proceedings of a Court then certainly the complaint must be by the Court, therefore in view of

this decision, even though in the complaint of the first Respondent, Ss. 464, 465 and 467 of Indian Penal Code also are referred to, as they are in

relation to the offence u/s 463, Indian Penal Code, without the complaint by the Court, against which the offence was committed, the complaint by

the first Respondent is not sustainable. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

In the result, the proceedings before the Inspector of Police in Crime No. 981 of 1992 are quashed. The petition is allowed.