Need court’s complaint when forgery committed in its custody: HC

The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that to initiate criminal proceedings, a complaint is required from the respective court only where forgery has been committed when the documents are in custody of the court.

“…where the forgery of documents has taken place outside the court, but the documents thereafter produced in the court, an FIR/complaint at the instance of a private individual is maintainable,” the high court bench of justice JS Bedi said while quashing a Kurukshetra court order.

In the case in hand two persons were convicted for forgery of documents for getting a truck involved in an accident on superdari. However, the appellate court acquitted them on the premise that there was noncompliance of Section 195 CrPC in as much as only the court concerned could have filed a complaint and the FIR could not have been registered. As per Section 195 of the CrPC, there is a bar against the court from taking cognizance of any offence under this section unless there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned.

Notably, the accident had taken place in 2000. When it was noticed that documents had been forged for securing release of the truck in December 2003 a criminal case was registered on the complaint of a private person. In 2007 two persons were convicted. However, the appellate court acquitted them in 2009 and matter came to high court the same year.

The complainant had argued that the primary reason for the acquittal of the accused is that there was noncompliance of Section 195 CrPC in as much as only a complaint was maintainable at the instance of the court before whom the offences in question had been committed. However, this reasoning adopted by the court was “fallacious” as the documents in question such as surety bonds, jamabandis and affidavit etc. had been forged outside the court and produced in the court and therefore, the bar contained under Section 195 CrPC from taking cognizance would not be attracted, it was argued.

The high court while taking note of an apex court judgment observed that a distinction has been drawn between forgery of documents committed while they are in custody of the court i.e. custodia legis and forgery of documents outside the court which they are produced in court in evidence. “In the former case, proceedings under Section 195 CrPC are to be resorted to in as much as the complaint is to be filed by the court where the forgery has been committed,” it said remanding back the case for reconsideration before the appellate court concerned.