S.195 CrPC Bar Not Applicable When Forgery Was Committed On Document Before It Was Given As Evidence In Court : Supreme Court

Dealing with a case involving allegations of forgery, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that there is no embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC to examine an allegation of forgery of documents filed in Court, when such forgery is committed before its production.

As per Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Court can take cognizance of an offence of forgery in relation to a document submitted in evidence in a Court proceeding only on a written complaint of an officer authorized by that Court (where the forged document was produced)

As per the allegations, the respondents had fraudulently obtained stamp paper and prepared an unregistered sale agreement. Thereafter, a suit was filed by them seeking certain reliefs and, in the suit, the forged document was filed.

The allegations however did not indicate whether the documents were forged when the matter was sub-judice before the Civil Court.

Criminal proceedings were initiated against the respondents alleging inter-alia forgery of documents filed in Court. The High Court quashed these proceedings, holding that there could be no FIR/private complaint for forgery of a document filed before Civil Court until the finality of the litigation.

When the appellant(s) assailed the same, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court ignored the ratio of the decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Another v. Meenakshi Marwah & Another. To quote this decision,

"Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis".

In view of disposal of the civil suits in 2021, it was further opined that the High Court proceeded on a wrong assumption that the civil litigation between the parties had not attained finality. 

Relying on Iqbal Singh, the bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan concluded that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC was not attracted. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the order of the High Court set aside.

Case Title: Arockiasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.5805/2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 717

Click here to read the order