CRPC 195 Case

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5805/2023)
AROCKIASAMY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH



O R D E R
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Leave granted.
2. Heard Dr. P. V. Saravanaraja, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant(s). Also heard Mr. M.P. Parthiban and Mr. Puneet
Singh Bindra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
accused. The state is represented by Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, learned
Additional Advocate General.
3. The counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the High Court
incorrectly
Signature Not Verified
noted that the civil litigation between the
Digitally signed by
Deepak Joshi
Date: 2024.09.18
appellant(s)
16:36:20 IST
Reason: and the respondents had not attained finality. In
order to show the error in the High Court’s finding, the counsel
refers to the judgment dated 09.04.2021 in the additional

2
documents, under which, the learned Subordinate Judge,
Satyamangalam had dismissed the OS No.21 of 2012 filed by M.M.
Rangasamy. On the same date i.e., 09.04.2021, the same Court had
allowed the O.S. No.154 of 2017 filed by A. Arokiasamy and Baby
Arokiasamy.
4. With the above, the counsel for the appellant(s) argues that
the High Court should not have allowed the petition filed under
Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash the criminal proceedings against
respondents for inter alia filing forged documents in Court.
5. On the above, learned counsel for the State would support the
SLP filed by the appellant(s) and submit that since forgery was
alleged, the High Court should not have quashed the criminal
proceeding.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
would submit that no doubt the concerned civil suits were disposed
of on 09.04.2021 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Satyamangalam
but the aggrieved party then preferred appeal and those are
pending.
7. The above would indicate that the High Court proceeded on the
wrong assumption that the civil litigation between the parties had
not attained finality. That apart, in our considered opinion, the
High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings by holding that
there can be no FIR/private complaint for forgery of a document
filed before Civil Court until the finality of the litigation. The
High Court ignored the ratio of the Constitution Bench in Iqbal
Singh Marwah & Another v. Meenakshi Marwah & Another reported in

3
2005 (4) SCC 370, wherein it has been held that there is no embargo
under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC to examine the criminal
allegation of forgery of documents filed in Court, when such
forgery is committed before its production in Court. The relevant
extracts are reproduced herein:
“25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii),

whereby the bar created by the said provision would also
operate whereafter commission of an act of forgery the
document is subsequently produced in court, is capable of
great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh [Sachida
Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 660] after preparing a forged document or committing an
act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding
instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by
himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the
document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected
from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or
the police until the court, where the document has been filed,
itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a
prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person
may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be
highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large.
…
“33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the
opinion that Sachida Nand Singh [Sachida Nand Singh v. State
of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] has been
correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct
view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted only when
the offences enumerated in the said provision have been
committed with respect to a document after it has been
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court
i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.”
(Emphasis supplied)
8. In the present case, the allegation in the complaint is that
the respondents had fraudulently obtained stamp paper and prepared
an unregistered sale agreement. Thereafter, suit was filed by the
respondents seeking certain reliefs and, in the suit, the forged

4
document was filed. The allegations do not indicate that the
documents were forged when the matter was sub-judice before the
Civil Court. Accordingly, as per the ratio in Iqbal Singh (supra)
the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC is not attracted.
Following the above, and noticing the apparent error in foundation
of the impugned order of the High Court dated 06.10.2022, the same
is set aside and quashed. The appeals are allowed. It is ordered
accordingly.
9. Before parting, it is made clear that the present order is
only in the context of the impugned order of the High Court dated
06.10.2022 and we have not pronounced on the merit of the pending
case of either party.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
.......................... J.
[ HRISHIKESH ROY ]
.......................... J.
[ R. MAHADEVAN ]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 10, 2024.
5
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5805/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-10-2022

in CRLOP No. 10551/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Madras)
AROCKIASAMY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.

IA No. 71932/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 5806/2023 (II-C)

SLP(Crl) No. 6624/2023 (II-C)

SLP(Crl) No. 6625/2023 (II-C)
Date : 10-09-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s)
Dr. P. V. Saravanaraja, AOR
Mr. P. Veerappan, Adv.
Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv.
Ms. Saket Gautham, Adv.
Mr. Tekchand, Adv.
Mr. Aakash Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Aakash Ravi, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. V Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR
Ms. Deepa S, Adv.
6
Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv.

Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv.
Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Adv.
M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR

Mr. S Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Adv.
Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.
Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, Adv.
Ms. R V Shaarumathi, Adv.
Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv.
Mr. Debasish Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Sanya Minhas, Adv.
Mr. E Sathiyaraj, Adv.
Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR

Mr. R. Sudhakaran,
Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Dv.
Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv.
Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv.
Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
[DEEPAK JOSHI] [KAMLESH RAWAT]

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed Order is placed on the File)

CRPC 195 Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRPC 195 Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRPC 195 Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. Respondent(s)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

2. Heard Dr. P. V. Saravanaraja, learned counsel appearing for

Singh Bindra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-

accused. The state is represented by Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, learned

Additional Advocate General.

refers to the judgment dated 09.04.2021 in the additional

documents, under which, the learned Subordinate Judge,

Satyamangalam had dismissed the OS No.21 of 2012 filed by M.M.

allowed the O.S. No.154 of 2017 filed by A. Arokiasamy and Baby

Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash the criminal proceedings against

respondents for inter alia filing forged documents in Court.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

of on 09.04.2021 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Satyamangalam

not attained finality. That apart, in our considered opinion, the

High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings by holding that

there can be no FIR/private complaint for forgery of a document

High Court ignored the ratio of the Constitution Bench in Iqbal

Singh Marwah & Another v. Meenakshi Marwah & Another reported in

under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC to examine the criminal

allegation of forgery of documents filed in Court, when such

forgery is committed before its production in Court. The relevant

extracts are reproduced herein:

“25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii),

8. In the present case, the allegation in the complaint is that

the respondents had fraudulently obtained stamp paper and prepared

an unregistered sale agreement. Thereafter, suit was filed by the

respondents seeking certain reliefs and, in the suit, the forged

document was filed. The allegations do not indicate that the

Civil Court. Accordingly, as per the ratio in Iqbal Singh (supra)

the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC is not attracted.

Following the above, and noticing the apparent error in foundation

is set aside and quashed. The appeals are allowed. It is ordered

9. Before parting, it is made clear that the present order is

06.10.2022 and we have not pronounced on the merit of the pending

case of either party.

10. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-C

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5805/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-10-2022

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.

IA No. 78732/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

IA No. 79763/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

IA No. 88969/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 10-09-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv.

M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR

Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

[DEEPAK JOSHI] [KAMLESH RAWAT]

You might also like