Forgery and Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Section 340 of CrPC

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a significant issue in the case of The State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, dealing with the quashing of an FIR related to forgery and document fabrication in legal proceedings. This judgment highlights the procedural requirements under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the necessity of a preliminary inquiry before initiating prosecution under Section 195 of the CrPC.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an FIR registered against Jasbir Singh under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on allegations that he had forged and fabricated documents submitted in proceedings before the Revenue Courts. The dispute stemmed from a property transfer application initially filed by the respondent’s mother, Karamjit Kaur, in Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

Several legal proceedings followed regarding the ownership of the subject property. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Tarn Taran, found that the respondent had submitted forged documents in connivance with revenue officials and directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patti, to register an FIR against him.

Legal Issues

• Did the FIR against the respondent violate the procedural requirements of Section 340 and 195 of the CrPC?
• Was a preliminary inquiry mandatory before initiating prosecution?
• Did the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner have the authority to direct the registration of an FIR?

Arguments by the Parties

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Punjab)

• The FIR was valid and filed as per due process, considering the findings against the respondent.
• There is no requirement under Section 340 of the CrPC to conduct a preliminary inquiry before initiating prosecution for forgery in judicial proceedings.
• The prosecution was justified given the fraudulent submission of documents in revenue proceedings.

Arguments by the Respondent (Jasbir Singh)

• The FIR was invalid as it was registered without a preliminary inquiry, which is mandatory under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the CrPC.
• The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner had no authority to order the FIR without a judicial determination.
• The allegations against the respondent were baseless and did not warrant criminal prosecution.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, examined whether a preliminary inquiry is mandatory under Section 340 of the CrPC before filing a complaint under Section 195 for forgery committed in judicial proceedings.

1. Interpretation of Section 195 of the CrPC

Section 195 of the CrPC restricts courts from taking cognizance of offenses related to forgery unless a complaint is filed by the court where the forged document was produced. The Court observed:

“Section 195 aims to prevent private individuals from initiating vexatious criminal proceedings for offenses involving forged documents submitted in judicial proceedings.”

2. Requirement of Preliminary Inquiry under Section 340

The Court considered the requirement of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340, which provides a mechanism for courts to determine whether prosecution should be initiated. The Court noted:

“It is not mandatory for the court to conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing a complaint under Section 195, but if conducted, the accused has no right to be heard at that stage.”

3. Conflict in Judicial Precedents

The Court examined previous rulings on this issue, including:

• Pritish v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 1 SCC 253 – Held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory and the accused has no right to be heard before prosecution.
• Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya (2010) 15 SCC 290 – Required a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity for the accused to be heard.
• Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel (2017) 1 SCC 113 – Reiterated that courts have discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry.

4. Referral to a Larger Bench

Due to conflicting judgments, the Court referred the following questions to a larger bench:

• Is a preliminary inquiry mandatory before initiating prosecution under Section 340 of the CrPC?
• What is the scope and ambit of such an inquiry?

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling that had quashed the FIR. However, it directed that the issue of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 be reviewed by a larger bench for clarity.

Key Takeaways

• Forgery in judicial proceedings requires careful scrutiny, and prosecution must comply with procedural safeguards.
• Courts have discretion to conduct preliminary inquiries before initiating prosecution under Section 195.
• There is no absolute right for the accused to be heard before a complaint is filed.
• A larger bench will decide on the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in The State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh underscores the procedural safeguards required before prosecuting offenses of forgery in judicial proceedings. While it upheld the FIR, the Court acknowledged the need for judicial clarity on Section 340 of the CrPC, referring the issue to a larger bench. This case sets a significant precedent for future cases involving forged documents in legal proceedings.

Petitioner Name: The State of Punjab.
Respondent Name: Jasbir Singh.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Place Of Incident: Punjab.
Judgment Date: 26-02-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The State of Punjab vs Jasbir Singh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-02-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category