SC: Private Complaint Alleging False Evidence Under Section 191/192 of IPC is Not Maintainable

Must Read

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Follow us

Last week, on 2nd September, the Supreme Court held that a private complaint would not be maintainable for offences of giving or fabricating false evidence. This is even if the creation of the false evidence was outside the Court premises i.e. before the Court considered it as evidence.

Background of the Case

Criminal complaints were filed by the appellants against the respondents for giving false evidence, forging debit notes and making false entries in books of accounts. The said complaints were originally under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”) in respect of offences alleged under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).

The appellants prayed to convert the said complaints to private complaints. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. (2005) for their reasoning. Judicial Magistrate converted the said complaints into private complaints. Thereafter, he issued process under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the IPC.

The Respondents, however, filed revision applications against the said Orders. They stated that the same attracted the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC. They further stated that the provisions under Section 340 had to be mandatorily followed. The Sessions Court allowed the revision petitions and quashed the complaints. The reasoning adopted was that Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) concerned itself with Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and not Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC, and therefore, would have no application in the facts of this case.

Appellant’s Contentions

The Appellant’s counsel pleaded that the offences under the “forgery” Sections of the IPC would be the subject matter of a private complaint. Hence, the procedure set out by Section 340 CrPC was not mandatory. Moreover, the documents were subsequently forged before taken in as evidence in the Court proceedings. A private complaint, therefore, would be maintainable.

It was wrong to say that the precedent was only confined to Section 195(1)(b)(ii). Its reasoning would apply to cases which fall within both Section 195(1)(b)(i) as well as Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. The complaints were correctly registered as private complaints.

Respondent’s Contentions

The Respondent’s counsel pleaded that the forgery sections under the IPC do not get attracted to the complaints. They were correctly filed under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the CrPC which pertains to giving false evidence. Section 195 of the CrPC states that in the offences covered by it, no Court shall take cognizance except upon the complaint in writing of a public servant concerned. Cognizance of a private complaint is therefore barred under the Section.

Moreover, Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) was a case which arose only under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. The complaints filed in the present case disclose offences which would fall within Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC.

Court’s Observations

The Bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman and Navin Sinha dissected several judgments and made the following observations:

a) The basic ingredient of forgery itself is not made out in the present case.

b) When considering Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC, the ratio of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) is not attracted. Creation of false evidence outside the Court premises attracting Sections 191/192 of the IPC, would not attract the aforesaid ratio. It would not validate a private complaint filed for offences made out under these Sections.

c) Iqbal Singh Marwah is a clear authority for the cases which fall under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. The document alleged as a forged one should be custodia legis after which the forgery takes place.

d) Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the provisions of Section 191 to 193 of the IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC applies. The offence punishable under these provisions does not have to be necessarily committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence allegedly committed concerning any proceeding in any Court.

e) What is conspicuous by its absence in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are the words “or in relation to”. It makes it clear that on the attraction of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii), the offence allegedly committed must be therefore committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis, and not an offence that may have occurred before the introduction of the document in Court proceedings. It is this distinction that is vital in understanding the judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah.

Court’s Decision

The Court disposed of the appeals. It reinstated the two complaints in their original form to proceed following the drill of Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -