V V L NARASIMHAMURTHY Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-1953-8-3
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on August 12,1953

V.V.L.NARASIMHAMURTHY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Somasundaram, J. - (1.) This is a petition to quash the order of committal passed in P. R. C. No. 11 of 1953 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate; Rajahmundry. The circumstances under which this petition has been preferred are these: The petitioner herein as the guardian of his minor daughter filed a suit in O. S. No. 33 of 1848 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, on the basis of a will said to have been executed by one Gunnamma. The will was filed along with the plaint. There was also a letter said to have been written by the two sons of Gunnamma confirming the will and it was also filed along with the plaint and the will. This suit was filed against the complainant in P. R. C. No. 11 of 1953 who was the first defendant in the suit. The defendant there claimed the properties under a settlement said to have been executed by one of the sons of Gunnamma. The defendant in his written statement attacked the will and the letter as forgery. The documents were sent to the Finger Print Expert as the will was only bearing the thumb impression of the testator. The petitioner herein, i.e., the father of the minor girl also gave evidence in support of the will. But after the opinion of the Finger Print Expert was obtained, the father withdrew the suit with the permission of the court and the suit was ultimately dismissed. The first defendant, therein has thereafter filed this complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Rs. 467 and 471, I. P. C. The learned Magistrate after taking evidence has committed the petitioner to take his trial for an offence under Sections 467 and 471, I. P. C. Against that committal, this petition was preferred for quashing the committal order.
(2.) The main point oh which Mr. Jayarama, Aiyar appearing for the petitioner seeks to quash this committal is that on the facts an offence under Section 193. I. P. C. is disclosed for which the court cannot take cognisance without a complaint by the court as provided under Section 195(1)(b), Criminal P. C. The first question which arises for consideration is whether on the facts mentioned in the complaint, an offence under Section 193, I. P. C. is revealed. Section 193 reads as follows: "Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine." "Fabrication of false evidence" is defined in Section 192. The relevant portion of it is "Whoever causes any circumstance to exist intending that such circumstance may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding and that such circumstance may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said "to fabricate false evidence." The effect of the allegations in the complaint preferred by the complainant is that the petitioner has caused this will to come into existence Intending that such will may cause the Judge before whom the suit is filed to form an opinion that the will is a genuine one and, therefore, his minor daughter is entitled to the property. The allegation, therefore, in the complaint will undoubtedly fall under Section 192, I. P. C. It will, therefore, amount to an offence under Section 193, I. P. C., i.e., fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in the judicial proceeding. There is no doubt that the facts disclosed will also amount to an offence under Sections 467 and 471, I. P. C. For prosecuting this petitioner for an offence under Sections 467 and 471, a complaint by the court may not be necessary as under Section 195(1)(c), Criminal P. C. a complaint may be made only when it is committed by a party to any proceeding in any court.
(3.) Mr. Jayarama Aiyar does not give up his contention that the petitioner, though he appears only as guardian of the minor girl, is still a party to the proceeding. But it is unnecessary to go into the question at the present moment and I reserve my opinion on the question whether the guardian can be a party to a proceeding or not, as this case can be disposed of on the other point viz., that when the allegations amount to an offence under Section 193, I. P. C., a complaint of court is necessary under Section 195(1) (b), Criminal P. C. and this cannot be evaded by prosecuting the accused for an offence for which a complaint of court is not necessary.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.