Supreme Court Clarifies Private Complaints in Forgery Cases: Interpretation of CrPC Section 195

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in Ashok Gulabrao Bondre vs. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh & Ors., clarifying the application of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The case addressed whether a private complaint could be entertained when an allegedly forged document was introduced in a judicial proceeding but had been created beforehand.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Ashok Gulabrao Bondre, filed a criminal complaint against the respondents, alleging offenses under Sections 191, 192, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 470, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint accused Respondent No. 2, Ramprasad Pancheshwar, of preparing false and forged documents, namely a personal recognizance bond and a surety bond, which were subsequently introduced in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2003.

The appellant contended that since the forgery occurred before the documents were submitted in a judicial proceeding, Section 195 CrPC did not bar a private complaint.

Lower Court and High Court Rulings

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ramtek, dismissed the complaint on November 6, 2004, citing the procedural bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, upheld the dismissal, reasoning that a complaint must originate from the concerned court when a document is used in judicial proceedings.
The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appellant’s challenge, agreeing with the lower courts’ findings.

Key Legal Issue

The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was:

Does Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC prohibit a private complaint if the alleged forgery took place before the document was introduced in a judicial proceeding?

Arguments by the Appellant

Senior Advocate Sachin Patil, representing the appellant, argued:

The alleged forgery took place before the document was submitted in the case.
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only when the forgery happens during judicial proceedings.
The bar under Section 195 CrPC does not extend to cases where the document was forged before being presented in court.
The High Court misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005), which permits private complaints in similar circumstances.

Arguments by the Respondents

Advocates Rahul Chitnis and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, appearing for the respondents, countered:

The allegedly forged documents were used in a judicial proceeding.
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC bars private complaints when a forged document is relied upon in court.
The appellant had already pursued a remedy under Section 340 CrPC, making the present complaint redundant.
The case was now academic, as the appellant had chosen alternative legal avenues.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, made the following key observations:

“The central issue is whether Section 195 CrPC applies when the forgery happened before the document was introduced in court.”
The Court referred to Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh (1996), which required a court complaint when forged documents were used in a judicial proceeding.
However, in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that Section 195 CrPC applies only if the forgery occurs after the document is submitted in court.
The Court reaffirmed the ruling in Iqbal Singh Marwah (2005), which clarified that “the bar in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) does not apply if the document was forged before being introduced in court.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The High Court and lower courts had misinterpreted Section 195 CrPC.
The appellant’s private complaint was maintainable since the alleged forgery occurred before the document was introduced in judicial proceedings.
The orders of the High Court and Sessions Court were quashed.
The matter was remanded back to the JMFC, Ramtek, for fresh consideration.
The trial court was directed to dispose of the matter within one year.

Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies important legal principles:

Scope of Section 195 CrPC: If a document was forged before being introduced in a court case, a private complaint is valid.
Judicial Authorization: Section 195 CrPC does not mandate court authorization for all forgery cases—only those involving documents forged after they are submitted in court.
Strengthening Legal Remedies: The ruling reinforces the right of individuals to file complaints against document forgery.
Timely Case Disposal: The Court’s direction for resolving the case within one year ensures swift justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashok Gulabrao Bondre vs. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh & Ors. is a landmark judgment in criminal law, affirming that fraudulent actions do not escape scrutiny merely because a forged document was used in a judicial proceeding. The judgment provides much-needed clarity on the interpretation of Section 195 CrPC and ensures that affected parties have a clear path to seek justice.

Petitioner Name: Ashok Gulabrao Bondre.
Respondent Name: Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Nagpur, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 12-04-2023.

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

Download Judgment: ashok-gulabrao-bondr-vs-vilas-madhukarrao-de-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-04-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2023
See all petitions in 2023 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