(supra). The Supreme Court in the said judgment held, “normally, a direction for filing of a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceeding before the Court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded and the final judgment is rendered”. It was also held that as per language of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is not bound to make a complaint as the Section is conditioned by the words “Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. The said words were held to show that such a course would be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. It was further held that this expediency would normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It was further held that even where the forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person but where such document is just a piece of evidence, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice is minimal, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint.”
