Holding

Prosecution for offences under Sections 467 and 471 IPC is not maintainable without a written complaint from the civil court that produced the alleged forged document, as mandated by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC.

Summary

The appellants, a father and son, entered into a printing‑press agreement with the first respondent and later filed a civil suit for recovery of a deposit and damages, producing the original contract and a money receipt. The respondent complained that the signature on the receipt was forged, alleging offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the IPC. The appellants moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the prosecution could not proceed without a written complaint from the civil court that produced the document. The High Court rejected this contention and allowed the criminal case to continue. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) bars cognizance of offences described in Section 463 IPC (including the specific forgery offence of Section 467) unless the civil court files a complaint, and therefore the prosecution was not maintainable. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the criminal complaint.

Issues considered

Whether prosecution for offences under Sections 467 and 471 IPC, arising from a document produced in a civil suit, is maintainable in the absence of a complaint from the civil court under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 195(1)(b)(ii), s. 340, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 463, s. 467, s. 471, s. 474

Subjects

forgerySection 467 IPCSection 195 CrPCcivil court complaintcriminal prosecutionquashmoney receiptcivil suit

Judgment

..OOPALAKRISHNA
. MENON AND ANOTHER
A
~

•.D..RAIA REDDY AND ANOTHER
September 5, 1983
B
(D. A. DESAI AND RANOANATH MISRA, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 195(/)(b)(il}-Scope of-In absence
of con1p!aint from appropriate civil court proseruUon for offenre punishable under
s. 467 l.P.C. not sustainable.
c lnJian Penal Code-S. 467 read withs. 463-Scope of-Offence punishable
•
under. s. 467 is offence described in 5. 463.

The appellants filed a civil.suit a1ainst the rcsPondents for ~ecovery of
certain a1nount of money and produced som~ c:>ri~nal documents with the
'plaint. The first respondent filed a complaint aaainst the appellants alleging
D forgery of his sig(\ature on one such document and thereby commission of
olf<nces punishable under sections 467 and 471 I.P.C. The appellants objected
to maintainability of the cri!_'ninal action and later moved the Hi&h Court for
quashing the said proceedings.· The appellants contended that in the absence
of con1plaint from the civil court the prosecution was barred in view of
s. 195 (l)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court dismissed
the application and observed that s. 463 l.P.C. cannot be construed to
E include s. 467.

Allowing the appeal,

HELD ; The prosecution would not be sustain~ble. [842 BJ

Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that
no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described ins. 463 ... -of the Penal
Code, when such offence is aUeg~d to have been committed in respect of a
document produced .. in a procee.diog in any Court ... except on the complaint
in writing of that Court. Section 463 of the Penal Code in a sense defines the
offence of f0rgery and the offence which is made punishable under s. 467 is in
respect of'an offence d~scribed in s. 463. Once it is a1:cepted that s. 463
G ·defines forgery ands. 467 p1;.nishcs forgery of a particular category, the pro-
vision ins. 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would.im1nediately
be attracted and on the basis that the offence punishable under s. 467 of the
Peaal Code is all offence' described ins. 463, in the absence of a con1plaint by
the Court the prosecution would ~ot be maintainable.
[839 E·G, 840 D, E, H;841 A·B]
H
Patel Laljib/iai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat, [1971] Suppl. S.C.R.
834; nod S. L. Goswami v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, [1979]
2 S.C.R. 385, referred to. ·
o. MENON Y. DR.. REDDY (Ranganath Misra, J.) 837
·'
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIS\>ICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 307
I of 1983 '

r
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the ~th November, 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1936 of 1.982.
B
A. Subba Rao for the Appellant.

B. Kanta Rao for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
RANGANATH MISRA, J. - The short question ansmg in this
appeal by .special leave is whether in the absence of necessary com-
plaint by the Civil Court where a money receipt alleged to have been
forged was produced, prosecution for offences punishable under
sections 467 and 471 read· with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code would
be maintaioabfo. The accused are the appellants and they challange D
the dismissal of their application under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh.

The appellants are father and son respectively. They took a E
printing press from the !st respondent in terms of an 'agreement
dated December 3, 1980, with a view· to carryi'lg on the printing
business. The agreement stipulated that ·the _appellants would have
'to deposit Rs. 20,000 with the'lst respondent and pay Rs. 500 p.m.
as also 50% of the net profits _•to !st respondent. Dispute arose
between the parties over the compliance of the terms of the agreement F
whereupon the 1st respondent filed against the appellants O.S. No.
609/81 for mandatory injunction and O.S. No. I 140/81 for recov.ery
of damages. Appellants filed O.S. No. 358/81 for refund of Rs.
20,000 claimed to have been deposited with !st respondent and for
recovery of,Rs. 8638 on the footing that the same had been paid to G
I st respondent by cheques· and in cash. , Along with their plaint
appellants ·produced the original contrac_t as also the money receipt .
for Rs. 20,000 in· support of tbe claim in the suit. After production
of the money receipt in Court, !st respondent filed a complaint
against the appellants alleging_ forgery of his signature on the money. H
receipt arid thereby commission of offences punishable under se~tions
467 and 471, I.P.C. On receiving summonses from the Court, the
appella_nts objected to maintainability of the criminal action anc.l
838 SUPREME COURT REPoRTS {1983) l S.C.R.
.
later moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for quashing the
A said proceedings by contending thai in the absence o'f complaint from .
the Court the prosecution was barred in view of s. 195 (I) (b) (ii) of
the Code. In support of this contention reliance was placed on s.
340 of the Code. The High Court referred to the provisions of ss.
463, 465, 467, 471 and 474 of the Penal Code and observed: 1
B "From the above provisions, it is quite manifest that
the offence which is mentioned in the complaint carries
greater punishment, namely, 10 years imprisonment,.
whereas under s. 463, I.P.C. the punishment is infinitely
lesser than the one under s. 467, namely 2 years of fine
c or both. That apart, in a case reported in 1979 Cr!.
L.R. at 228, it has been held by the Gujarat High
Court that the offences laid down under ss. 474 and 471,
I.P.C. are distinct. In that case it was contended thai a
com plaint by A to police under s. 47 4 that B was in
possession of forged documents with intention to use
D them in Court proceedings and thereafter B P,roducing
documents · in Court and thereby committing offence
under s. 471 did not wipe out the offence under s.
474. The High Court held under ·these circumstances. that
the Magistrate can proceed with case under s. 474 against
B grounding the reason that s. 195' (I) (b) (ii) is not
attracted ..
. . .
The penal provisions as it is fairly settled ought to be
interpreted very strictly' and therefore on the foregoing
analysis I have no hesitation in holding that s. 463 can-
F not be construed to include s. 4'67 as well and, therefore,
certainly it is competent for the Magistrate to take
cognizance of and try the same as it is needless to follow
the case. Hence the contention on the basis of the
provisions in s. 340 of the Code ·of Criminal Procedure
fails and the same ls rejected".
G
There 'is ·no dispute that ·the · alleged forged document was
produced in the suit brought by the appellants. Section 340 of .the
Code provides :
H "340. (1) When, upon an application made io it in
this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion tffat 'it
j;expedient ·in the interest of justice that an inquiry
().MENON v. D.R. REDDY (Ranganath Misra, J.) 839

-should he made into any offence referred to in clause (b)
of sub-section (I) of section 195, which appears to have A
. been committed in or in relation to a prbceeding in that
Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that
Court,_ such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if
. any, as it thinks necessary - B
(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

• (cl send it to a Magistrate of the class having
jurisdiction;
c
(d) take. sufficient security for the appearance of the
accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged
offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it
necessary so to do, send the accused in custody D
to such Magistrate; and ·
. .
(e) bind over any person to appear
.
ahd give
evinence qefore such Magistrate".

The ~elevant part of·s .. J95 referred to in s. 340 of the Code'. E
·reads thus :
"19S. (1) No Court shall take cognizance~
x x x x
(b) (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or F
punishable under sectiim 47l, section 475 or section 476,
of the said Code, wheii such offence is alleged to have
been committed in respect of a document produced or
a
given in evidence in proceeding in any Court, . . . except
on the complaint in writing of that Court, or ·of some- G
other 'Court to which that Court is subordinate".
(underlining is ours)

Ifs. 195 (I) (b) (ii) is attracted to the facts of the present _case,
in the absence of a complaint in· writii:ig _of the Civil Court \vhW'e
ff·.
the alleged forged rec~ip\ has been produced, ·taking of cognizance
of the offence would. be bad in law and the prosecution· being not·,-
maintainable, there would · be alisolutely no jusiification · to harass ·
' 840 SUPREME COURT REPoRTS h983} j s.c.i<..
the appellants by allowing prosecution to have- a full dressed trial.
A Section 195 (I) (b) (ii) uses two different expressions: in regard. to S·
- 463 of the Indian Penal Code it says, "offence described", while in
regard toss. 471 and 475 or 476 of the I.P.C. it says, "punishable" .
. The High Court has not made any reference to s. 471 of I.P.C. while
rejecting the submissions of the appellants apparently because s. 471
B in terms has been mentioned in the provision. So far as s. 463 is
concerned, the High Court has taken the view as we have already
indicated that "section 463 cannot be construed to include ·s. 467".
Section 463 of the l.P .C. provides :

"463. Forgery - Whoever makes any false document
c or part of a document, witil intent to cause damage or
injury to the public or to any person, or to support any
claim or title or to cause any person to part with
property, or to enter into any express or implied contract,
or with intent to commit fraud or that ·rraud may be
D committed, commits forgery".

It is the opening section of Chapter XVlll of the Penal Code
dealing with offences relating to documents Md to property· marks.
This opening scctjon in a .sense defines the offence of forgery. Section·
467 of the.Penal Code provides:
E
"467. Forgery of valuable security, will, ·etc. -
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a
valuable security or a will, or an aµthorlty to adopt a son,
or which purports to give authority to any person to
·F make or transfer any valuable seeurity' or to receive the
principal, interest, or dividends th~eon, or to receive or
deliver any money, moviible propehy; or valuitb)e security,
or any document purporting to be an acquittance or
receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an
G acquittance or receipt for the delivery o.f any movable
property or valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either
.
. shall also be liable to fine".
.
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and

H' >'»· ,. • •.. '.• . . I

· The purpose of our extracting the two sections of the Penal Code is
to show the offence which is made punishable under s. 467 of
a: MENON v. D.R. REDDY (Ranganath Misra, J.) s4i
the Penal Code.is in respect of an offence described in s. 463. Once
it is accepted that s. 463 defines forgery and s. 467 punishes for-
aery ofa particular category, the provision ins. 195 (I) (h) (ii) of
the Code would immediately be attracted and on the basis that the
offence punishable under s.. 467 of the Penal Code is an offence
described in s. 463, in the absence of a complaint by the Court the
prosecution would not be 111aintainable.. We have no do.ubt in our
mind that the High .Court took a worng view of the matter. B

We may briefly refer to two decisions of this Court. In Patel
Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat,(') the accused had filed
a suit .for recovery of certain money on the basis of a · forged cheque
and a private complaint had been filed before .the Court of the C
Judicial Magistrate alleging offences under ss. 467 and 471 of the
I.P.C. The appellant raised an objection that in view of s. 195 (I)
(c) of the Code 'of Criminal Procedure cognizance' of the offence
could not be taken on a private complaint. The ·High Court
upheld the order of commitment by finding that though there
~ould be a bar for prosecution for offences punishable un.der ss. D
467 and 471 of the I.P.C.·on a private complaint, in the facts of the ,
case that question did not arise and this Court refused to interfere.
by holding that the alleged offences had been committed at a time
when the accused was not a party to the civil proceeding. Not the·
conclusion but the ratio supports our view. E

In S.L. Goswami v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabbalpur,(') to which one of us wa;_ a party, it was held that an
offence under s. 466, I.P.C. was covered by clause (c) of s. 195· (I)
of the Code _and it came within the purview of the section as the
offence under s. 463, T.P.C: is dealt ·with in s. 466, I.P.C. Section F
466, I P.C., it wa~ pointed out, was an aggravated form of forgery
in that the forgery should relate to a document specified in that
section. Section 466, I.P.C. was, therefore, an offence as described
ins. 463; I.P.C. which was committed in relation to a record or
proceeding of or in a Court of justice. What was said in tire' afore· G
said decision in regard to the offence under s. 466, I.P.C. has full
application to an offence under s. 467, I.P.C. Therefore, the
ratio of the last cited decision has full application to the
present case.
H
... 11) {1971! Suppl. S.C.R. 834.
(2) [1969) 2 S.C.R. 385.
<; ' ~ (1 .: ' ~ ~ ' .•
842 SUJ'.RllME COURT REPORTS (1983) 3 s.c.R.

In view of what we have said above, the prosecution in the
A instant case on the basis of a private complaint and in the absence
of a complaint from the appropriate civil court where the alleged
fraudulent receipt has been produced, would not be sustainable.· As
we are of the view that if the prosecution is allowed to continue
. '
\.
serious prejudice would be caused to the appellants and they would
be called upon to face a trial which would not be sustainable, we
B
allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court ·and .·~
quash the complaint case filed against the appellants.

H.S.J<.. Appeal allowed.
c

••••

.'
•··
.;:-~

,·. '