- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, summoning the applicant in Criminal Sections 419, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code, and for terminating the proceedings, based on the complaint filed by the Opp. Party No. 2.
(2.) THE complainant's allegation was that the applicant alongwith 4 accused in the case, falsely prepared and forged a Will in the name of his deceased father, depriving the complainant of his share of House No. 252. Heard Sri B. S. Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant- accused, Sri M. A. Quadeer for the Opp. Party No. 2 and the learned A. G. A. for the State. The accused have raised objection of Section 195 (I) (b) (ii) of Criminal Procedure Code because they say that the impugned Will had been filed in the case between them and a tenant before the Prescribed Authority and the case in that regard could only proceed on the basis of a complaint by the Court. He has also pleaded the bar of Section 210 Cr. P. C.
(3.) AS regards the bar under Section 195 (I) (b) (ii) of Criminal Procedure Code, the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sacchidanand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar, 1998 (1) JIC 838 (SC) : 1998 (3) A. C. C. 466 (S. C.), which acts as a complete bar. This is what the Supreme Court said: "that apart it is difficult to interprete Section 195 (I) (b) (ii) as containing a bar against initiation of prosecution proceedings merely because the document concerned was produced in a Court albeit the act of forgery was perpetrated prior to its production in the Court. Any such construction is likely to ensue unsavory consequences. For instance, if rank forgery of a valuable document is detected and the forgerer is sure that he would imminently be embroiled in prosecution proceedings he can simply get that document produced in any long drawn litigation which was either instituted by himself or some body else who can be influenced by him and thereby pre-empt the prosecution for the entire long period of pendency of that litigation" (8) In para 12 of the judgment following observations have been made. "it would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed for outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the Court records". The Will in question was prepared out side the Court and not in relation to any document which was part of the record of the Court. The Counsel for the applicant had no answer to this and kept mum. The bar of Section 195 (I) (b) (ii) will not, therefore, be applicable.;