The Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition said that Section 195 (I) (b) bars the Court taking cognizance of an offence, in which, forgery has been committed in a documents filed in case pending in any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, if such forgery has been made in any Court proceedings, then the concerned Court should file a complaint as provided under Section 340 CrPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Vishwanath.
The criminal revision has been filed for challenging the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC, Basti in Criminal Misc Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti.
By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for directing the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti to register and investigate the criminal case against the opposite party No 2.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C alleging that his younger brother, namely, Shivnath (opposite party No 2) committed forgery and obtained the registered will deed by his father-Drigpal on 16.05.1994.
He further submitted that the revisionist had filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti.
In the aforesaid suit, revisionists had challenged the will deed dated 16.05.1994, which was executed in favour of opposite party No 2 (Shivnath). This suit has been decreed in favour of the revisionist vide order dated 04.04.1995 and will be executed in favour of the opposite party No 2 has been cancelled.
After ten months of the decree of the aforesaid suit, opposite party No 2 instituted Original Suit for cancellation of the aforesaid order dated 04.04.1995. The aforesaid suit instituted by the opposite party no 2 was rejected by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti on 25.01.1997.
Against the order dated 25.01.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), opposite party No 2 filed revision before District Judge Basti, which was also rejected vide order dated 12.11.1998. Against the aforesaid order of the Revisional Court, opposite party No 2 also filed a writ petitioner before the Court, which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 08.01.1999.
The opposite party No 2 after concealment of earlier order passed by competent Court cancelling the will deed, filed mutation proceedings with false affidavit and forged cancelled will dated 16.05.1994 before Tehsildar-Sadar, District Basti on the basis of aforesaid affidavit and will deed, the Court concerned passed order in favour of opposite party No 2 on 23.07.2007 and directed the Revenue Authority to record the name of opposite party No 2 in place of his father-Digpal on the basis of aforesaid will deed.
After knowledge of the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2007, the revisionist filed recall application along with relevant details, Tahsildar, Sadar, District Basti vide order dated 04.02.2009 allowed the recall application of the revisionist and directed to record the name of revisionist and his real brother in place of their father in revenue record. Against the aforesaid order, opposite party No 2 also filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Basti under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, which was rejected vide order dated 30.03.2010.
Subsequently, the opposite party No 2 concealing the earlier proceedings initiated before the authority concerned, instituted the further mutation proceedings under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act 1901 for recording his name over the property of his father, but it was rejected vide order dated 06.09.2022.
The Court noted that the trial Court has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC on the ground that in his application, revisionist/applicant has prayed for lodging FIR against the opposite party Nos 2 and 3 for fraud and forgery. Although the disputed will dated 16.05.1994 was cancelled by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti, but opposite party Nos 2 and 3 by filing false affidavit and aforesaid forged will in the Court of Tehsildar, Sadar, District Basti, vide order dated 04.02.2009 obtained their name mutated in the revenue record.
In the impugned order, trial Court has mentioned the registration of FIR regarding filing of forged documents in a Court proceedings is barred under Section 195 (1) (b) (i) CrPC. The trial Court has given reason that for the alleged offences only a complaint case can be instituted by the Court, in whose judicial proceedings, false affidavit or forged documents have been filed, therefore, for the alleged offences no order for registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) CrPC could be passed.
“From the perusal of averments made in the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC, it transpires that alleged forgery in affidavit and will deed was not done while they were already been filed in the case pending in different Courts. The alleged false affidavit or forged document were prepared outside the Court and the same has been filed in the judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court. Thus, the bar against taking cognizance of a criminal case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances given in the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC.
Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sachida Nand Singh (supra), it is obvious that Magistrate has wrongly held that Section 195 (1) (b) CrPC bars registration of FIR even in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court and thereafter, it has been filed in a judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court.
Apart from this Section 195 (1) (b) CrPC, imposes no bar on registration of a criminal case relating to such forge documents, it merely bars that the Magistrate shall not take cognizance of an offence regarding such forged document unless the Court, in which, forgery has been committed, filed a complaint case in accordance with the provision of Section 340 CrPC. The Magistrate has not discussed or given any other reason for rejecting the application filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC and also has not considered the other point raised in the application for registering a criminal case regarding alleged forged affidavit and false will.
From the above discussion, I am of the view that while passing the impugned order, the Magistrate has committed illegality and has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him, in accordance with law”, the Court observed while allowing the criminal revision.
The Court set aside the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC, Basti.