S. 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC Doesn't Bar FIR Registration Where Alleged Forgery In Documents Took Place Outside Court: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) CrPC doesn't bar registration of FIR in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court and thereafter, the alleged forged document was filed in judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court.

For context, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences of Forgery, etc. 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.

"Section 195 (1) (b) CrPC, imposes no bar on registration of a criminal case relating to such forged documents, it merely bars that the Magistrate shall not take cognizance of an offence regarding such forged document unless the Court, in which, forgery has been committed, filed a complaint case in accordance with the provision of Section 340 CrPC," a bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I ruled.

The Court was essentially dealing with a criminal revision filed challenging an order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC, Basti rejecting the revisionist's plea under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. This plea sought direction for the Station House Officer (SHO) to register and investigate a criminal case against the opposing parties (Nos. 2 and 3) for fraud and forgery.

The revisionist alleged that despite the cancellation of the disputed will by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti, opposing parties 2 and 3 managed to have their names included in the revenue record by submitting false affidavits and forged documents to the Tehsildar's Court, Sadar, District Basti.

In the impugned order, the Civil Judge's Court stated that the registration of FIR regarding the filing of forged documents in Court proceedings is barred under Section 195 (1) (b) (i) CrPC.

The trial Court also gave reason that for the alleged offences only a complaint case can be instituted by the Court, in whose judicial proceedings, false affidavit or forged documents have been filed, therefore, for the alleged offences no order for registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) CrPC could be passed.

When the matter reached the HC, the single judge noted that it was the case of the revisionist that the purported forgery in the affidavit and will deed did not occur while these documents were already filed in a separate court case. The alleged false affidavit or forged document was prepared outside the court and subsequently, the same was submitted during judicial proceedings in another ongoing case.

Thus, the Court noted that the bar against taking cognizance of a criminal case won't be applicable in the facts and circumstances given in the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC.

In this regard, the Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Sachida Nand Singh And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr 1998 wherein it was held that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC does not apply to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court.

In view of this, the Court concluded that while passing the impugned order, the Magistrate had committed illegality and had not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him, in accordance with law and hence, the said order was set aside by allowing the revisionist's plea.

Further, the Court directed the Magistrate concerned to pass a fresh order on the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC after giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist/applicant.

Case title - Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 185 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194

Click Here To Read/Download Order