Allowed

Sri. Rathnakar Shetty v. State by

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2024CRL.P/630/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC's complaint alleging false charge sheet and connivance by police and claimants led to prosecutions against the petitioner for forgery and cheating offences. Holding that cognizance was barred without a Section 340 complaint from the Court where the document was filed, the High Court quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions allowed; orders dated 08.10.2021 and 14.11.2022 quashed; proceedings in C.C.No.12281/2009 and C.C.No.17549/2008 against petitioner quashed.

Sri. Rathnakar Shetty Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 765 OF 2023

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 630 OF 2023

¶9

IN CRL.P No. 765/2023

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI RATHNAKAR SHETTY S/O NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.8, I BUILDING 1^ST FLOOR, POLICE QUARTERS SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI T.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE BY ULSOOR GATE POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

DY. CHIEF SECURITY AND VIGILANCE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶19

CORPORATION, TRANSPORT HOUSE SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2022 PASSED BY LI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, REJECTING THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.366/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ALSO TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE B PASSED BY THE IST ADDITIONAL CMM BENGALURU REJECTING THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.12281/2009 CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.12281/2009 (CR.NO.91/2006) HALASURUGATE POLICE STATION VIDE ANNEXURE E AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1st ADDITIONAL CMM, BENGALURU FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.465, 468, 471, 420, 511 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.12) IS CONCERNED.

¶23

IN CRL.P NO. 630/2023

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI RATHNAKAR SHETTY S/O NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 8, I BUILDING 1ST FLOOR POLICE QUARTERS SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI T.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶29

AND:

¶30

STATE BY

¶31

ULSOOR GATE POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶32

G.N.LINGARAJU S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SECURITY AND VIGILANCE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR – 517 247.

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶35

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY LI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN CRL.RP.NO.369/2021 REJECTING THE PETITION AND ALSO TO CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS i.e C.C.NO.17549/2008 (CR.NO.196/2006) PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL.C.M.M AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-B REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED FOR DISCHARGE OF THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.7 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.17549/2008 (CR.NO.196/2006) VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.7) IS CONCERNED.

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶37

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The petitioner is common in both these cases. The facts

¶41

and legal issues projected in the cases at hand are common, so is the complainant. Therefore, the two are taken together and considered by this common order. For convenience, the facts as narrated in Crl.P.No.765 of 2023 are noted.

¶42

Heard Sri T Prakash, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in both the petitions, Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt H R Renuka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶43

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶44

On 08-08-2003 an accident occurs near Chikkabidarakallu

¶45

between KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA13-F978 and a lorry. On the same day of the occurrence of the accident, a

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶47

complaint was registered before the Nelamangala police station in Crime No.570 of 2003 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. The petitioner who was at that point in time officer in charge of the police station at Nelamangala gets transferred on 16-01-2004 and reports to duties at Bangalore. On 28-07-2004, claim petitions are filed before the concerned Court in MVC Nos.4540 of 2004, 4541 of 2004 and 4542 of 2004. Again on 16-08-2004, second set of claim petitions are filed in MVC Nos.4964 of 2004, 4965 of 2004 and 4966 of 2004 and on 23-08-2004, the third set of claim petitions in MVC Nos.5143 of 2004 and 5144 of 2004.

¶48

On 10-06-2005, charge sheet comes to be filed against

¶49

the accused in Crime No.570 of 2003 for the afore-quoted offences. The concerned Court registers C.C.No.313 of 2005 arraigning the present petitioner as accused No.12. On 19-01-2006, three claim petitions in MVC Nos.4540 of 2004, 4541 of 2004 and 4542 of 2004 come to be withdrawn by the respective claimants. After the aforesaid withdrawal comes the impugned complaint by the 2^nd respondent-KSRTC. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.91 of 2006 for offences

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶51

punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 209, 511, 120B and 34 of the IPC. The claim petitions in MVC Nos.4964 of 2004, 4965 of 2004 and 4966 of 2004 come to be dismissed for default and the 3^rd set of claim petitions in MVC Nos.5143 of 2004 and 5144 of 2004 comes to be withdrawn. The police then investigate into the matter and file a charge sheet in Crime No.91 of 2006 on 03-06-2009. The concerned Court registers C.C.No.12281 of 2009 for the afore-quoted offences.

¶52

Few of the accused had approached this Court in

¶53

Crl.P.1741 of 2007 and connected cases. This comes to be allowed, quashing the proceedings against the accused therein. This was challenged by the State before the Apex Court in Crl.A.No.1905 of 2008. The Apex Court noticing the fact that the matter was still at the stage of investigation, directed continuance of investigation and reserved liberty to the accused to challenge the charge sheet in the event it is filed. After the aforesaid order, comes the charge sheet as observed. Therefore, the petitioner then files an application seeking his discharge from the array of accused. The discharge application comes to be rejected by order dated 8-10-2021, against which,

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶55

the petitioner prefers a revision petition before the Court of Sessions, which also comes to be rejected on 14-11-2022. It is therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in both these cases.

¶56

6. Though dates and events would differ, the facts in

¶57

the companion petition Crl.P.No.630 of 2023 are also identical except that they are arising out of different claim petitions wherein petitioner is arraigned as accused No.7.

¶58

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri T Prakash would contend that the complaint registered by the KSRTC was not maintainable, as the allegation was that the petitioner has filed a false charge sheet and the doctors have given an erroneous wound certificate. He would contend that if at all proceedings had to be initiated against the petitioner, it ought to have been on a complaint by the concerned Court, in terms of procedure to be followed as obtaining under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., as it was concerning a charge sheet filed before the Court.

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶60

Per-contra, the learned counsel Smt H R Renuka appearing for the 2^nd respondent/KSRTC would contend that the claimants withdrew the claim petitions knowing full well that they were not entitled to the claim and a false charge sheet was filed by the petitioner before the concerned Court against the driver of the vehicle. It is therefore, the KSRTC had to prefer the complaint. The learned counsel would contend that the discharge application is rejected and the proceedings must be permitted to be continued.

¶61

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for 1^st respondent/State would leave the decision to the hands of this Court, as according to the State the Court has not complained of any of the falsity in filing the charge sheet.

¶62

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶63

The afore-narrated incident, link in the chain of events, dates and the subsequent developments to the registration of the crime are all a matter of record, they would

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶65

not require any reiteration. It would suffice if the issue would commence from the registration of the complaint against the petitioner and several others. Who is the complainant is discernible from the complaint so registered. The complainant is the KSRTC. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, it is germane to notice the complaint and it reads as follows:

¶66

“Ref.No.KST/CO/LAW/ACDT:5068:2005.06 DT.07.03.2006

¶67

The Station House Officer, Halasuru Gate Police Station, BANGALORE.

¶68

Sir,

¶69

Sub: Complaint against false and frivolous claim for compensation with active connivance of Petitioners, Advocates, Doctors and Police officials.

¶70

¶71

One of our buses bearing Regn. No. KA-13F-978 met with an accident on 8.8.03 near Chikkabidarakallu, Nelamangala Taluk, when the ST bus dashed against a lorry from behind and further dashed to a roadside tree on NH-4. The ST driver sustained injuries to his legs and head and has taken treatment at Govt. hospital, Nelamangala. After receiving notices from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bangalore is the claim petitions filed by eight persons, it was suspected that they might be false claims and the Corporation proceeds to find out the truth behind such claims. It is found that above eight persons without being involved in any kind of accident, as confirmed by the Sr. Medical Officer, Govt. hospital, Nelamangala have filed claim petitions before the MACT and sought for compensation against the Corporation contending that they have sustained grievous injuries in the above accident and have obtained first aid treatment

¶72

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶73

at Govt. hospital, Nelamangala and further treatment at Primary Health Centre, Dobaspet/Tulsi Nursing Home, Dobaspet……..”

¶74

The complaint was false and frivolous claim for compensation with active connivance of the Advocates, Doctors and Police officials. Based upon the said complaint, the entire proceedings have now sprung for the afore-quoted offences. The police after investigation file a charge sheet against all the accused. Column No.17 of the charge sheet reads as follows:

¶75

‘”¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ºÀ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ UÉÃmï ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.91/2006 PÀ®A 465, 468, 471, 420 eÉÆvÉUÉ 511 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 34 ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA gÀ°è zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ PÁ®A £ÀA.17

¶76

¢. 8.8.2003 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 5 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è gÁ¶ÖæÃAiÀÄ ºÉzÁÝj-4 gÀ°è aPÀÌ©zÀgÉPÀ®Äè UÁæªÀÄzÀ §½ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj¤AzÀ vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ PÀqÉUÉ ZÀ°¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ §¸ï ¸ÀA PÉ.J.13 J¥sï.978gÀ ZÁ®PÀ §¸Àì£ÀÄß Cw ªÉÃUÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvÉ¬ÄAzÀ ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrzÀ PÁgÀt §¹ì£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÉ J 01 J¥sï 397 ¯ÁjUÉ rQÌ ªÀiÁrzÀ PÁgÀt C¥ÀWÁvÀ GAmÁVzÀÄÝ. ¸ÀzÀj ¯Áj ZÁ®PÀ ªÀÄÈvÀÄåAdAiÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÉÆlÖ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÉÆ. ¸ÀA. 570/2003 zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ²æÃ gÀvÁßPÀgÀ ±ÉnÖ ¦.J¸ï.L. £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® oÁuÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è 1) ±ÀPÀÄAvÀ®, 2) £ÀgÀ¹AºÀªÀÄÆwð, 3) UÀAUÀ¨ÉÊ®¥Àà, 4) ªÀ¸ÀAvÀ, 5) £ÀgÀ¸ÀªÀÄä, 6) ºÀ£ÀÄªÀÄPÀÌ 7) C£À¸ÀÆAiÀÄ, 8) ªÀÄÄ¤PÀÈµÀÚ (ªÀÄÈvÀ) gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀUÉÆAqÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ §¸ï ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂ¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ, CªÀgÀ ¸ÁQë ºÉÃ½PÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇgÉÊ¹, DgÉÆÃ¦ §¹ì£À ZÁ®PÀ gÁªÀÄPÀÈµÀÚ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® eÉ.JA.J¥sï.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ ¹ ¹ ¸ÀA. 313/2003gÀ°è £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶77

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ §¸ï C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è UÁAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀªÀgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ£ÁßV £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀÝ ²æÃªÀÄw ±ÀPÀÄAvÀ® ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÃ½gÀÄªÀ 7 ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À JA.«.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è C¥ÀWÁvÀ «ªÉÄ

¶78

11 -

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶80

¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj PÀæªÀÄªÁV JA.«.¹. ¸ÀA. 1) 4540/04 2) 4541/04, 4542/04, 4964/04, 4965/04, 4966/04, 5143/04 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5144/04gÀ°è zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶81

£ÁåAiÀÄ®ªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸À£ÀÄß eÁj ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F §UÉÎ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄÄ G¥À ¨sÀzÀævÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÁUÀÈvÁ¢üPÁj ²æÃ dAiÀÄ¥ÀæPÁ±ï gÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð¨sÁ« «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÝgÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ. «ZÁgÀuÁ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æÃ dAiÀÄ¥ÀæPÁ±ï gÀªÀgÀÄ §¸ï C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÃ¼À¯ÁzÀ ²æÃªÀÄw ±ÀPÀÄAvÀ® ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ 7 d£ÀgÀÄ §¹ì£À°è ¥ÀæAiÀÄt ªÀiÁr®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀjUÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ªÀAa¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½zÀÄ §AzÀ PÁgÀt. F §UÉÎ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ºÀ®¸ÀÆgï ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÉÆ. ¸ÀA 91/2006 PÀ®A 465, 468, 471, 420 eÉÆvÉUÉ 511, 120(©) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 34 ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. jÃvÁå ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼À¯ÁzÀ 8 ªÀÄA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¦.J¸ï.L. gÀvÁßPÀgÀ ±ÉnÖ. qÁ: vÀÄ¼À¹gÁªÀÄ, qÁ: gÀWÀÄ«ÃgÀ, ªÀQÃ®gÁzÀ ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹.N.r.¬ÄAzÀ ªÀiÁr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶82

¢.8.8.2003 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ §¸ï C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è §¹ì£À ZÁ®PÀ gÁªÀÄPÀÈµÀÚgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀjUÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁUÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå ¥ÉÃzÉ DgÉÆÃ¦ J11 PÉÆÃªÀÄ¯ÉÃ±ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÉÆPÀzÀÝªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁr DgÉÆÃ¦ J1 jAzÀ J7 ºÁUÀÆ J13 gÀªÀjUÉ JA.«.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀºÀPÀj¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. §¸ï C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁUÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆÃ¦ J1- J-2, J-4, J-5, J6 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ wÃªÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå PÉÃAzÀæ ªÉÊzÀågÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦ J8 qÁ: gÀWÀÄ«ÃgÀ gÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆÃ¦ J8 qÁ. gÀWÀÄ«Ãgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj D¸ÀàvÉAiÀÄ°ènÖzÀÝ £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ ¥ÀÄ¸ÀÛPÀzÀ°è UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀzÉ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁUÀ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ½UÉ wÃªÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVªÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀÅzÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ «ªÉÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ½UÉ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆÃ¦ J-3, J-7 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆÃ¦ J-13 (ªÀÄÈvÀ) gÀªÀjUÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ §¸ï C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è UÁAiÀÄªÁUÀzÉ EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ wÃªÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVªÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ SÁ¸ÀV ªÉÊzÀågÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦ J9 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî zÁR¯É ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶Ö¹ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ½UÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆÃ¦ J10 ªÀQÃ®gÁzÀ ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆÃ ¦ J13 ªÀÄÄ¤PÀÈµÀÚ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢.7.5.2005 gÀAzÉÃ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ. CªÀgÀÄ §zÀÄQgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è

¶83

12 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶85

UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ¢:09.10.2005 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶Ö¹ JA.«.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ AiÀiÁgÀzÉÆÃ ¸À» ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆÃ¦ J1 jAzÀ J7gÀªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß JA.J.¹.n £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹ C¥ÀWÁvÀ «ªÉÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀºÀPÀj¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶86

J12 gÀvÁßPÀgÀ ±ÉnÖ gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦ J1 jAzÀ J7 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J13 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ §¹ì£À°è ¥ÀæAiÀiÁt ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀjUÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ §¹ì£À ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ w½¹zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀ ¸ÁQë ºÀ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ næ¥ï ²ÃlÄßß vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀzÉ, ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼É®ègÀÆ §¸ï C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è wÃªÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ºÉÃ½PÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ZÁ®PÀ£À §¹ì£À ZÁ®PÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ «ªÉÄ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä JA.«.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®zÀ°è zÁªÉ zÁR°¸À®Ä vÀ¤SÁ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁr ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶87

………DgÉÆÃ¦ J1, J2, J4, J5, J6 gÀªÀjUÉ DgÉÆÃ¦ J8 gÀªÀgÀÄ .... J7 ºÁUÀÆ J13 gÀªÀjUÉ J9 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ... ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ JA.«.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß …. ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÀPÀj¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆÃ¦ J10 ªÀQÃ®gÀÄ, C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è UÁAiÀÄUÉÆ¼ÀîzÉ EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ½UÉ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼À ¸À» ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ JA.«.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁr C¥ÀWÁvÀ «ªÉÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀºÀPÀj¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁr ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶88

DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼É®ègÀÆ PÀ®A 465, 468, 471, 420 eÉÆvÉUÉ 511 ¸ÀºÀ PÀ®A 34 ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA.gÀ Cr ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ºÉÆj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶89

DgÉÆÃ¦ J13 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ¬ÄAzÀ PÉÊ©qÀ¯ÁVzÉ.”

¶90

The petitioner is accused No.12 in Crl.P.No.765 of 2023.

¶91

Against him the allegation is that, knowing full well that there was no person injured, without looking into the trip sheet, it

¶92

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶93

was indicated that there was injury in the accident and he has connived with the claimants for the purpose of compensation. It becomes germane to notice the date of the filing of the charge sheet, which is on 10-06-2005 in C.C.No.313 of 2005, by then, the investigating officer was changed, as the petitioner had been transferred to Bangalore on 16-01-2004.

¶94

Several of the accused had knocked at the doors of this Cout as observed hereinabove, which come to be allowed and the Apex Court setting those orders at naught, reserved liberty to those accused to approach the appropriate Court at the appropriate stage in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, petitioner along with others files discharge application. The discharge application of few of the accused comes to be allowed for an illustration, the discharge application of accused No.11 who was in the police station and who had investigated into the matter comes to be allowed. Insofar as this petitioner is concerned, it comes to be rejected.

¶95

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶96

The issue now would be, whether the KSRTC could

¶97

complain of allegedly filing of a false charge sheet before

¶98

a Court of law?

¶99

To consider this issue, it becomes germane to notice

¶100

Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. bars the Court from taking cognizance, except as otherwise of a complaint being made by the Court and the procedure for the Court to act is, as is provided under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

¶101

“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195 .—(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of Justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,—

¶102

(a) record a finding to that effect;

¶103

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

¶104

¶105

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do,

¶106

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶107

send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

¶108

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

¶109

(2) The power conferred on a Court by subsection (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.

¶110

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,—

¶111

(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;

¶112

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.

¶113

(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.”

¶114

Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. deals with offences affecting administration of justice. It is the duty of the Court to complain against any party to the lis or a witness if any document within the custody of the Court is tampered or forged.

¶115

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶116

The allegation in the case at hand is, filing of false charge sheet before the Court, whether it would become custodia legis for the Court to complain against the producer of the said document. The issue with regard to bar under Section 195(1)(b) has been dealt with by the Apex Court from time to time.

¶117

The kernel of such conundrum was the subject matter of a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of IQBAL SINGH MARWAH AND ANOTHER v. MEENAKSHI MARWAH AND ANOTHER¹ . The Five Judge Bench was constituted to resolve a conflict between two decisions of the Apex Court rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges one in Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh – (1996) 3 SCC 533 and the other in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar – (1998) 2 SCC 493 regarding interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in IQBAL SINGH MARWAH answering the said issue holds as follows:

¶118

“2. In view of conflict of opinion between two decisions of this Court, each rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges in Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh [(1996) 3 SCC 533: 1996 SCC (Cri) 521] and Sachida Nand Singh v. State of

¶119

1 (2005) 4 SCC 370

¶120

NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶121

17 -

¶122

Bihar [(1998) 2 SCC 493: 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] regarding interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), this appeal has been placed before the present Bench.

¶123

23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will 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 is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded.

¶124

NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶125

18 -

¶126

25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh [(1998) 2 SCC 493: 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large.

¶127

33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh [(1998) 2 SCC 493: 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. 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.

¶128

(Emphasis supplied)

¶129

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶130

The Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court opined that SACHIDANAND SINGH has been correctly decided and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. 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 a proceeding in any Court i.e., during the time the document was in custodia legis . The judgment in the case of IQBAL SINGH MARWAH did not consider the words ‘in relation to’ appearing in Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. It was a Judgment considering 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C.

¶131

The Apex Court, in a subsequent judgment, in the case of BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.

¶132

PRASAD VASSUDEV KENI² considering the very issue of bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. for any Court to take cognizance has held as follows:

¶133

“11. Shri Yogesh Nadkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, referred to the pending suits, and to the application for conversion of the complaints, which, according to him, were correctly filed under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC. He argued that the High Court was correct in its conclusion that Iqbal Singh Marwah [Iqbal Singh

¶134

2 2020 SCC OnLine SC 707

¶135

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶136

Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101] was a case which arose only under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, and that the complaints filed in the present case disclose offences which would fall within Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. He also vehemently argued that the debit notes, which were the sheetanchor of the appellants' case, cannot be said to have been forged within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 IPC, as the debit notes, even if dishonestly or fraudulently made, had to be made within the intention of causing it to be believed that such debit notes were made by a person whom the person making it knows that it was not made, which is not the case, as the debit notes were made on the sole proprietorship's letterhead, with the writing and signatures that were of the proprietor. He, therefore, argued that the forgery sections under IPC do not get attracted at all to the complaints, which were correctly filed under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC.

¶137

12. Shri Nadkarni contended that the counter-affidavit that was relied upon by the appellants to the respondent's revision applications was clearly an afterthought, in order to buttress a hopeless case. In any event, the complaints read as a whole, would make it clear that the entirety of the complaints were in, or in relation to, offences committed under Sections 191 and 192 IPC used/to be used in judicial proceedings and, therefore, fell squarely within Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. He also argued that after conversion into a private complaint, the Magistrate issued process only under Sections 191 to 193 IPC, which order remained unchallenged by the appellants. He also cited judgments relating to the object sought to be achieved by Section 195, as well as judgments which distinguished Iqbal Singh Marwah [Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101]

¶138

21 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶139

on that ground that it applied only to cases falling under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and not to cases falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.

¶140

13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant sections of CrPC and IPC.

¶141

13.1.CrPC

¶142

“ 190. Cognizance of offences by

¶143

Magistrates .—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the First Class, and any Magistrate of the Second Class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence—

¶144

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

¶145

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

¶146

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

¶147

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the Second Class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.

¶148

¶149

195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence .—(1) No Court shall take cognizance—

¶150

(a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

¶151

22 -

¶152

NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶153

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

¶154

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,

¶155

except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

¶156

(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

¶157

(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, 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, or

¶158

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or subclause (ii),

¶159

except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

¶160

(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by

¶161

23 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶162

the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:

¶163

Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

¶164

(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.

¶165

(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:

¶166

Provided that—

¶167

(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the appellate court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;

¶168

(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

¶169

***

¶170

340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 .—(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in

¶171

24 -

¶172

NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶173

that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary—

¶174

(a) record a finding to that effect;

¶175

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

¶176

¶177

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

¶178

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

¶179

¶180

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed—

¶181

(a)where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;

¶182

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.

¶183

(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in Section 195.

¶184

25 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶185

341. Appeal .—(1) Any person on whose application any Court other than a High Court has refused to make a complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such Court, may appeal to the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195, and the superior court may thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or, as the case may be, making of the complaint which such former Court might have made under Section 340, and, if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly.

¶186

(2) An order under this section, and subject to any such order, an order under Section 340, shall be final, and shall not be subject to revision.

¶187

***

¶188

343. Procedure of Magistrate taking cognizance .—(1) A Magistrate to whom a complaint is made under Section 340 or Section 341 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter XV, proceed, as far as may be, to deal with the case as if it were instituted on a police report.

¶189

(2) Where it is brought to the notice of such Magistrate, or of any other Magistrate to whom the case may have been transferred, that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen, he may, if he thinks fit, at any stage, adjourn the hearing of the case until such appeal is decided.”

¶190

13.2.IPC

¶191

“ 24. “ Dishonestly ”.—Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.

¶192

26 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶193

25. “ Fraudulently ”.—A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.

¶194

* * *

¶195

191. Giving false evidence .—Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.

¶196

Explanation 1.—A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.

¶197

Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know.

¶198

192. Fabricating false evidence .—Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, 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”.

¶199

27 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶200

193. Punishment for false evidence .— Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any 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 seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

¶201

and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶202

Explanation 1.—A trial before a court-martial is a judicial proceeding.

¶203

Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.

¶204

***

¶205

196. Using evidence known to be false .— Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence.

¶206

***

¶207

463. Forgery .—Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

¶208

NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶209

28 -

¶210

464. Making a false document .—A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record—

¶211

First.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently—

¶212

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

¶213

(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;

¶214

¶215

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature,

¶216

with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or

¶217

Secondly.—Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or

¶218

Thirdly.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.

¶219

29 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶220

Explanation 1.—A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.

¶221

Explanation 2.—The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.

¶222

Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “affixing electronic signature” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).”

¶223

23. At this stage, it is important to understand the difference between the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC. Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attract the provisions of Sections 191 to 193 IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC applies. What is important is that once these sections of IPC are attracted, the offence should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court. Thus, what is clear is that the offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any court.

¶224

24. The words “in relation to” have been the subject-matter of judicial discussion in many judgments. Suffice it to say that for the present, two such judgments need to be noticed. In State Wakf Board v. Abdul Azeez Sahib [State Wakf Board v. Abdul Azeez Sahib, 1966 SCC OnLine Mad 80: AIR 1968 Mad 79] , the expression “relating to” contained in Section 57(1) of the Wakf Act,

¶225

NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶226

30 -

¶227

1954 fell for consideration before the Madras High Court. The High Court held: (SCC OnLine Mad)

¶228

“8. We have no doubt whatever that the learned Judge (Kailasam, J.), was correct in his view that even the second suit has to be interpreted as within the scope of the words employed in Section 57(1) namely, “In every suit or proceeding relating to title to Wakf property”. There is ample judicial authority for the view that such words as “relating to” or “in relation to” are words of comprehensiveness which might both have a direct significance as well as an indirect significance, depending on the context. They are not words of restrictive content and ought not to be so construed. The matter has come up for judicial determination in more than one instance. The case in Compagnie Financiere ET Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co. [Compagnie Financiere ET Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co., (1882) LR 11 QBD 55 (CA)] , is of great interest, on this particular aspect and the judgment of Brett, L.J., expounds the interpretation of Order 31 Rule 12 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1875, in the context of the phrase “material to any matter in question in the action”. Brett, L.J., observed that this could both be direct as well as indirect in consequences and according to the learned Judge the test was this (QBD at p. 63):

¶229

‘… a document can properly be said to contain information which may enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary if it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of inquiry, which may have either of these consequences.’ ”

¶230

31 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶231

26. Contrasted with Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC speaks of offences described in Section 463, and punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 IPC, when such offences are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. What is conspicuous by its absence in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are the words “or in relation to”, making it clear that if the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are attracted, then the offence alleged to have been committed must be committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis, and not an offence that may have occurred prior to the document being introduced in court proceedings. Indeed, it is this distinction that is vital in understanding the sheet anchor of the appellant's case, namely, this Court's judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah [Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101].

¶232

27. In Iqbal Singh Marwah [Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101], a five-Judge Bench was constituted in view of a conflict between decisions of this Court as follows: (SCC p. 376, para 2)

¶233

“2. In view of conflict of opinion between two decisions of this Court, each rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges in Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh [Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 533: 1996 SCC (Cri) 521] and Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar [Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493: 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] regarding interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), this appeal has been placed before the present Bench.”

¶234

32 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶235

28. The Court first spoke of the broad scheme of Section 195 CrPC, which deals with three distinct categories of offences, and held that the category of offences contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) ought to be read along with the offences contained in Section 195(1)(a) and 195(1)(b)(i), which are clearly offences which directly affect either the functioning or discharge of duties of a public servant or of courts of justice. This was stated in para 10 of the judgment [Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101] as follows: (Iqbal Singh Marwah case [Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101] , SCC pp. 380-81)

¶236

“10. The scheme of the statutory provision may now be examined. Broadly, Section 195 CrPC deals with three distinct categories of offences which have been described in clauses (a), (b)(i) and (b)(ii) and they relate to : (1) contempt of lawful authority of public servants, (2) offences against public justice, and (3) offences relating to documents given in evidence. Clause (a) deals with offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC which occur in Chapter X IPC and the heading of the Chapter is — “Of Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants”. These are offences which directly affect the functioning of or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant. Clause (b)(i) refers to offences in Chapter XI IPC which is headed as — “Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice”. The offences mentioned in this clause clearly relate to giving or fabricating false evidence or making a false declaration in any judicial proceeding or before a court of justice or before a public servant who is bound or authorised by law to receive such declaration, and also to some other offences which have a direct correlation with the

¶237

33 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶238

proceedings in a court of justice (Sections 205 and 211 IPC). This being the scheme of two provisions or clauses of Section 195 viz. that the offence should be such which has direct bearing or affects the functioning or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice, the expression “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” occurring in clause (b)(ii) should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in court, does not appear to be in tune with clauses (a)(i) and (b)(i) and consequently with the scheme of Section 195 CrPC. This indicates that clause (b)(ii) contemplates a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any court.”

¶239

(Emphasis supplied)

¶240

The Apex Court in BANDEKAR BROTHERS went on to interpret the words ‘in relation to’ and was pleased to hold that when any document is produced before the Court or evidence tendered before the Court albeit it being created outside, if it is produced ‘in relation to’ a case before the Court which helps the

¶241

34 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶242

Court to form an opinion for or against a particular party, it would come within the ambit of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. and be a bar.

¶243

The judgment aforesaid in the case of BANDEKAR BROTHERS is subsequently considered by the Apex Court in the case of BHIMA RAZU PRASAD v. STATE³ . The Apex Court formulated a point with regard to importance of words ‘in relation to’ as appearing in Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. and holds as follows:

¶244

“II. Import of the Words “in relation to” in Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC.

¶245

30. This brings us to the phrase “in relation to any proceeding in any Court”, which appears in Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC but is absent in Section 195(1)(b)(ii). It may be argued that this phrase makes the scope of Section 195(1)(b)(i) wider than Section 195(1)(b)(ii). The words “in relation to” under Section 195(1)(b(i) appear to encompass situations wherein false evidence has been fabricated prior to being produced before a Court of law, for the purpose of being used in proceedings before the Court. Therefore, it may not be possible to apply the ratio of Iqbal Singh Marwah by way of analogy to Section 195(1)(b)(i) in every case.

¶246

31. For further elucidation on this point, we may turn to the recent decision of this Court in Bandekar Brothers (supra). The appellants in that case claimed that the respondents/accused had given false evidence and forged debit notes and books of accounts in civil court proceedings between the parties. They had initially

¶247

3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 210

¶248

35 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶249

filed application under Section 340, CrPC before the relevant Judicial Magistrate. However, they later sought to convert this into private complaints, in reliance upon Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra). The respondents objected on the ground that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) could not be circumvented. Subsequently, the appellants took the plea that offences under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) were also made out:

¶250

“13. The point forcefully argued by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants is that his clients, being victims of forgery, ought not to be rendered remediless in respect of the acts of forgery which are committed before they are used as evidence in a court proceeding, and that therefore, a private complaint would be maintainable in the fact circumstance mentioned in the two criminal complaints referred to hereinabove. The Court has thus to steer between two opposite poles of a spectrum the “yin” being the protection of a person from frivolous criminal complaints, and the “yang” being the right of a victim to ventilate his grievance and have the Court try the offence of forgery by means of a private complaint. In order to appreciate whether this case falls within the category of avoiding frivolous litigation, or whether it falls within the individual's right to pursue a private complaint, we must needs refer to several decisions of this Court.”

¶251

32. This Court thereafter proceeded to distinguish between the offence of fabricating false evidence under Sections 192 and 193, IPC and the offence of forgery. It noted that the averments made by the appellants in their complaints pertained exclusively to giving of false evidence and did not disclose the ingredients of forgery as defined under the IPC. Hence, this Court in Bandekar Brothers upheld the respondents' contentions, and opined that Iqbal Singh Marwah would not benefit the appellants in that case. Even though the false evidence was created outside of the Court, it was by the appellants' own admission, created “in relation to” proceedings before the Court. Thus, this Court held that:

¶252

36 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶253

“19. At this stage, it is important to understand the difference between the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the provisions of Section 191 to 193 of the Penal Code, 1860, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies. What is important is that once these Sections of the Penal Code, 1860 are attracted, the offence should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. Thus, what is clear is that the offence punishable under these Sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court.

¶254

22. Contrasted with Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks of offences described in Section 463, and punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 of the Penal Code, 1860, when such offences are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. What is conspicuous by its absence in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are the words

¶255

“or in relation to”, making it clear that if the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are attracted, then the offence alleged to have been committed must be committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis, and not an offence that may have occurred prior to the document being introduced in court proceedings. Indeed, it is this distinction that is vital in understanding the sheet anchor of the Appellant's case namely, this Court's judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra).”

¶256

(emphasis supplied)

¶257

33. We fully agree with the aforementioned reasoning. The presence of “in relation to” under Section 195(1)(b)(i) means that Iqbal Singh Marwah would not have blanket application to every case where a complaint is lodged in respect of an offence specified under that Section. However, on the facts of Bandekar Brothers, this was not a situation in which the offence

¶258

37 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶259

complained of did not have a “reasonably close nexus” with the court proceedings. The offence of giving false evidence was committed by the respondents, who were party to the court proceedings, for the purpose of leading the Court to form an erroneous opinion on a point material to the result of the proceedings. Hence it could be said that though the offence was not committed during the course of the court proceedings, it was certainly committed “in relation to” such proceedings.

¶260

34. Similar circumstances were present in Kailash Mangal v. Ramesh Chand (Dead) Through Legal Representative, (2015) 15 SCC 729 and Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar, (2019) 3 SCC 318, which were the decisions relied upon by this Court in Bandekar Brothers (supra). In Kailash Mangal, it was alleged that the appellant in that case had filed a false affidavit before the civil court for getting a civil suit decreed in his favour. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 340, CrPC alleging offence punishable under Sections 193 and 419, IPC. The Division Bench observed that:

¶261

“10. In the instant case, the false affidavit alleged to have been filed by the appellant was in a proceeding pending before the civil court and the offence falls under Section 193 IPC and the proceeding ought to have been initiated on the complaint in writing by that court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) IPC. Since the offence is said to have been committed in relation to or in a proceeding in a civil court, the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah is not applicable to the instant case.”

¶262

(emphasis supplied)

¶263

39. The construction of the words “in relation to” must be controlled by the overarching principle applicable to Section 195(1)(b), CrPC as stated in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai (supra) and Sachida Nand Singh (supra), which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra). That is, even if the offence is committed prior to giving of the fabricated evidence in court, it must have a direct or

¶264

38 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶265

reasonably close nexus with the court proceedings.

¶266

40. Looking to the decision in Bandekar Brothers (supra), is true to say that Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC may be attracted to the offence of fabricating false evidence prior to its production before the Court, provided that such evidence is led by a person who is party to the court proceedings, for the purpose of leading the Court to form a certain opinion based on such evidence. The bar against taking of cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(i) may also apply where a person who is initially not a party to the court proceedings fabricates certain evidence, and

¶267

1) subsequently becomes a party and produces it before the Court; or;

¶268

2) falsely deposes as a witness before the Court on the strength of such evidence, for the purpose of causing the Court to form an erroneous opinion on a point material to the result of the proceedings.

¶269

41. However, where a person fabricates false evidence for the purpose of misleading the investigating officer, this may not have any direct nexus with the subsequent court proceedings. There is an indirect nexus inasmuch as if the investigating agency does not suspect any wrongdoing, and the Court commits the case for trial, the evidence will be produced for the Court's perusal and impact the judicial decision-making process. However, it may be equally possible that even if the fabricated evidence appears sufficiently convincing, the investigating agency may drop proceedings against the accused and divert its time and resources elsewhere. Therefore, the offence may never reach the stage of court proceedings. Further, if it subsequently comes to light that the evidence was falsely adduced, it will be the investigating agency which will suffer loss of face and be forced to conduct a fresh investigation. Hence, though the offence is one which affects the administration of justice, it is the investigating

¶270

39 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶271

agency, and not the Court, which is the aggrieved party in such circumstance.”

¶272

(Emphasis supplied)

¶273

The Apex Court in the case of BHIMA RAZU PRASAD considered the import of the words of Section 195(1)(b)(i) which was not considered by the Five Judge Bench in IQBAL SINGH MARWAH supra, as the Five Judge Bench had considered only Section 195(1)(b)(ii). The Apex Court in BHIMA RAZU PRASAD holds that the result of Section 195(1)(b)(i) would mean that IQBAL SINGH MARWAH would not be applicable to every case where a complaint is lodged in respect of an offence specified under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.

¶274

It also considers BANDEKAR BROTHERS which dealt with the words ‘reasonably closed nexus’ and holds that if a document is produced in relation to a Court proceeding, even if the offence is committed prior to giving fabricated evidence, if it has a direct or reasonably closed nexus with Court proceedings, then the bar under Section 195 would become applicable.

¶275

In the light of the afore-quoted statutory provision and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in BANDEKAR

¶276

40 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶277

BROTHERS and BHIMA RAZU PRASAD , what would unmistakably emerge is that, if a false document is placed before the Court in relation to a case pending before it, the bar under Section 195(1)(b) would become applicable. It is not that the accused can walk away with the alleged offence, but the complaint should emerge from the Court, therefore, the procedure under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. though is said to be followed in the case at hand, it is on the foundation of a complaint registered by the KSRTC not before the same Court, but before a different Court. The concerned Court ought to have complained of filing of a false charge sheet before it. It has admittedly not happened in the case at hand. Therefore, on a loosely laid foundation, superstructure of proceedings are built, which is bound to collapse.

¶278

The Apex Court has clearly held and interpreted the

¶279

words “in relation to”. Therefore, if in the relation to a crime that was pending before the concerned Court, if a document is filed, it becomes custodia legis and if it is a false document, it is for that concerned Court to register the crime.

¶280

41 - NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶281

In the light of the proceedings impugned and nothing

¶282

against the petitioner, as he was not even the officer from 16-01-2004, all these factors have been completely glossed over by the Court answering the discharge application. The Court answering the discharge application cannot act as a rubber stamp to what the investigating officer has filed as a charge sheet. It has a duty cast under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. In that light the petitions become entertainable, considerable and the resultant, crime unsustainable.

¶283

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶284

ORDER

¶285

(i) Both the Criminal Petitions are allowed.

¶286

(ii) Impugned orders dated 08.10.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate and dated 14.11.2022 passed by the LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru stands quashed.

¶287

(iii) Consequently, the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.12281 of 2009 (Crime No.91 of 2006) in Crl.P.No.765 of 2023 and C.C.No.17549 of 2008

¶288

NC: 2024:KHC:48369 CRL.P No. 765 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 630 of 2023

¶289

42 -

¶290

(Crime No.196 of 2006) in Crl.P.No.630 of 2023 also stands obliterated.

¶291

SD/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶292

bkp List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:SS

Sri. Rathnakar Shetty v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rathnakar Shetty v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Harsha Chandrashekharaiah Vs the State by Yelahanka Police

Smt Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Srikanth Vs State of Karnataka by Psi

Sri. Rathnakar Shetty Vs State by

Jabiualla @ Jabi Vs State of Karnataka

P H Sudharshan Char Vs State of Karnataka by