Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U. P.versusSURESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 101
- Decided
- 3 May 1984
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed that the complaint did not disclose offences under sections 467, 471 and 120B IPC, so those charges could not be taken cognizance under section 195, and the remaining offences may be tried without a complaint.
Summary
In 1967, court staff removed used court‑fee stamps from old High Court files and reused them in new cases, prompting an investigation that led to charge‑sheets under sections 262, 263, 467, 471, 380, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused contended that the offences under sections 467, 471 and 120B IPC fell within the ambit of section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore required a written complaint before a magistrate could take cognizance. The Allahabad High Court held that, on the facts, no offence under those sections was disclosed in the complaint and consequently quashed the proceedings only with respect to the 467, 471 and 120B charges, while allowing prosecution for the remaining offences. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the alleged stamp‑fraud constituted forgery or use of forged documents and reiterated that section 195 applies only to offences expressly covered unless they form an integral part of the same transaction. Finding no allegation of forgery, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, directing that the remaining charges be tried without a complaint under section 195. The appeals and special leave petitions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under sections 467, 471 and 120B IPC fall within the scope of section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby requiring a complaint before cognizance.
- Whether the complaint lodged by the Registrar disclosed any offence of forgery or use of forged documents as defined under the aforementioned IPC sections.
- Whether the trial court can proceed with prosecution for offences not covered by section 195 without a complaint.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 195(1)(b)(ii), s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 262, s. 263, s. 380, s. 420, s. 467, s. 471
Subjects
criminal proceduresection 195complaint requirementforgerystamp fraudcognizanceIndian Penal CodequashHigh CourtSupreme Court
Judgment
. ·' ...
'·
STATE.OFU:P.· ·-.·'-"
.. I -
.v.
sURESH CHANDRA s.RIVASTAVA & ORS.·
. ..
May 3, 1984 .
. .
·'. >n
[S. MURTAZA FA.zAL Au, A VARA~AAA1AN AND .
RAN~A~Arn MISR~,JJ,J
.
·· ·· ··
.; '
. -- ' ,,
-a Code of Criminal
.- . . .
Procedurec...s, 195(/)(b)(ii°r-Scope of.,.
The respondCntS.in the ·3pp:al and the ·petitione~s in" th~ ·special l~ave
. petitions were the same persoris arid ~ere erDvioyees o( : the.- AJlab-abaci_ High
'CoUrt.. The:Y W(re found to. have femoved ·some. used court fee stamps from·.
ol_d files and [e-us~d them in ne·w ·cases:· ~e Reiistrar_ with, th_e perinission of, ·
. · tbe.Chfof Justice of"the High Court reported~., tlie matter: to ·.the .PoliCe~ . The
.. Pofic.e after investigai.iofi subinitteci before the1rial Co~Ct three charge~sheets for
D off~nCes undei ss. 262. 263,. 467--471 and 120B, I.P.C. - In an application· tiled- by
' .
; the resPondent for quashini-th~ PrOceedings,~the High Cotirt. held· that so far
·as the offences undcr·sS:-467. 471 and 120B,. f.P.C. werC:concerned as they .fell
w~tbin the 3mbii o(secti_gn_ 195(J)(b)(ii)- Of the Criminal Procedure rio cogni-
- zance could be ~en by thejriatcoU:rt without a complaint being filed, b"ut for·
Othet offences the_ pro'ceeding~ Would continue. Hence these' cross· appeitS and
· $pecial _Jeavc:: p~titit~ofls. " ·
E .'
-:riis~isSing the appe.als and the petitionS, ..
.
. - .
HELD : The 1:aw .iS: ri0w wen 'settled- that Whe-re. an accused commits som~
Offences _which· are: separate and distiflct frOm those contained·_ in s.195 of the ··~
Code of Criminal Procedure, s.195 .will affect.Only the ·offe~ce;·meritiOned there-
F.', . in unJesS: such offences form an int~gral part scr aS-to amount to offl!nces com-
mitted _'as a part .Of the Sarrie transaction,_ in which case the other offences also. __
would fall within the ambit of s. !95:orthe Code. [741 Di .· ...
I~l"the i~siaiit case: On .the facts- narrated by the Registrar in his cOmPiaint
_.-- . · no _offen-ce unciCr· ss. 467, 471 and l20B, I.P.C. is at.all revealed. At the most" the
or
.· offe.nces against the accused would fall withiri. the ambit sections 262, 263,' 380
G and 4iO, I.P.C; which do not require ·a compJ.ifnf under s. 195 of the Code of \i....
Criminal Prcicedurl!. ·. As ~uch · it._ is-ncit necessary -'to go iD.tO the qllesdon as 'to
·what offences are connected with ss~ 467.-471 and_ ·-120B and ~hkh are Severable-· -· .·
from them .. The lligh Court· waS fullY justifi.C_d·. in quashirig the proCeediu&s •
agaui"st the- accµsed as far as. offe_D.ces under Ss-:' 467~-471 and 120B. I.P.C. ·were
con~rn~d, ·not because they Were ·covered_ bys.~ 195. of .the. Code but because
ciUegatiOns contained· in. thC complaint_ did not . contstitUte these· offences.• The
H
·_ lJ-igh Couti was_ further ·rutlr jtistified ·in dirCcting that other o~ences men\ion-
ed above did flat require a__ c_omplaint·under s.195.and _would ~veto be.tried. .., . \
·. . . .. ' . [741E-G[ ,
. •' ":. -~ -
tJ.P, STATE v. s.c. SRIVASTAVA (Fazal Ali, J.) 739
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. A
461-466 of 1980
•
'
From the Judgment & Order dated 9.11.78 of the Allahaba<l
High Court in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 1655, 1656, 1657,
1691 and 1698 of 1979.
B
. AND
Special Leave Petition Nos. 903-908 of 1984
. Da!veer Bhandari & H.M. Singh for the appellant.
P. Govindan Nair and Pramod Swarup for the respondent-.
c
Pramod Swarup for the petitioner in SLP Nos. 903-908 of 1984.
The Judgment of the Court was delive~ed by
FAZAL ALI, J. These appeals by ~pecial leave 'arise out of a
judgment dated January 9, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court D
refus.ing to quas\l<lhe proceedings in toto which were pending before ·
the Chief J1,1dicial Magistrate, Allahabad, in exercise of ihe powers
under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {hereinafter
to be referred to" as the 'Code'). The High Court, howevet, quashed
the proceedings only in respect of offences under ss. 467, 471 and
120B of the Indian Peria! Code and directed prosecution .of the res- E
pondents in respect of other offences to proceed according to law.
In order to understand the implication of the judgment of the High.
Court, it may be necessary to narrate a few facts.
It appears that some time· in the year 1967 S.hankar Lal
Bhargava, who was officiating as Stamp Reporter in the Registry of F
the Allahabad High Court, with the aid of Suresh Chandra
Srivastava and Bishan Swarup, who were clerks of Advocates,
removed used stamps and out of them reused three court-fee stamps
of the value of Rs. JOO each. ·in First Civil Appea\Nos. 281/67,
282/67 and L.57/67. When the niatter was detected; an enquiry was
G
ordered and the Judidal Department of the High Court reported to·
the Registrar that court-fee stamps of the value of Rs. 23,007.50 p.
(9n 15 sheets) were missing from the judicial file of First Appeal
No. 186 of 1960. The enquiry further revealed that in several other
cases also court-fee stamps had been taken out· from the original
files and reused in new cases. The Registrar of the High Court
suspected that a ~ell-organised gang of racketeers was ope~ting in
ihe High Court to defral!d the Government by ~urreptitiously
I •
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R.
·'
"'mciving. the used stamps from the judicial files and re-using them
in new cases. Th~ Registrar, with the permission o( the Chief
Justice of the High Court, reported .. the matter to'the Inspector
General of Police, l~,P., who ordered the Criminal Investigation
Department of U.P. to investigate into the matter and ultimately
three charge-s.heets Were submitted for offences under ss. 262, ;263,
B 467, 471, 420 and l'fOB of the Indian Penal Code.
The responde*ts filed an application before the High Court .''
contending that as Offences under ss. 467, 471 and t20B, I.P.C. fell l.
within the purview pf s. 194 of the Code, no prosecution could be
launched without the procedure, laid down ins. 195, followed. It
c is common ground ~hat no complaint as requ.ired by the mandatory
· proyisions of s. 195 of the Code having been made, the proceedings .
. could not be proce~ded. The High Court held that so far as the
offence under ss. 4p7, 47l·and 120B, l.P.C. were concerned as they
fell within the ambit of s. 165((\)b)(ii) of the Code, no co11nizance
D could be taken by 1the Magistrate without a complaint being filed.
The relevant portfon of s. 195(1J(b) inay be extracted thus :
1
"195.(1) No Court shall take cognizance-
. xx I xx xx
E· (b)(ii) tjf any· offence described in section 463, or
punishable u~der section 471, section ~475 or section 476,
of the said I Code, when such offence is alleged to have
been committed in respect of a document produced or given
in evidence i~ a proceeding in any court, or
F (iii) of Jny criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt
to commit, ~r the ah~tment of, any offence specified.in sub-
clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), · . ·
except on th¢ complaint in writing of that Court, or of some
other Court Ito Which that Court is subordinate."
G On the fac)s mentioned above, it is clear to us that in the
complaint sent byl the Registrar to the Inspector General of Police,
offences mention~d were offences under ss. 262, 263,_ 467, 380, 420,
and 471 but frbm a perusal of. the recitals in the original
Memorandum which formed the basis of the complaint it seems to
H ns that the only offences which have made ont would be offences
undet ss. 262, 26~, 380 and 420 which are obviously not covered, by ...
s, 195 of the Cod'e.
\J.P. STATB v. S.C. SRIVAS1AVA (Faza/ A/i, J.) 141
The High Court held that the offences under ss. 467, 471 and
A
120B, I.P.C. even if made out could not be taken cognizance of by
the trial CO)lrt with.out a complaint under s. 195 of ·the Code. A
perusal of the facts shows that there is .not even a hint regarding
forging any document or using a forged document. Taking the
complaint at its face \alue, at the most the cases against the accused
would fall within the ambit of ss. 262, 263, 380 and 420, I.P.C;
J, . which.do not require a complaint under s. 195. The fact that some
persons aided and abetted the detaching Of the used stamps from
the old Jiles and re-using them in the other cases does not involve
any process of forgery or use of a. forged document.
c
In these circumstances, therefore, it is not necessary for. us to
go into the broader question as to whether if offences under ss. 467,
471 and UOB, I.P.C. are committed, 1he complaint could proceed
or not. The law is now well settled that where .an accused commits
some offences which are separate and distinct from lhose contained D.
in s. 195, and section 195 will affect only· the offences mentioned
therein unless such offences form an integral part so as to amount
to oifellces committed as a part of the same !ransaction, i~ which
case· the other offences also would fall within the ambit of s. 195 of
·the Code.
E
In the instant case", a(already pointed out by us, on the facts
narrated by the Registrar in his complaint no offence under ss. 467,
471 and 120B, l.P.C. is at all revealed and as such it is not necessary
to -go into the question as to what offences are connected with
ss. 467, 471 and l 20B and which are severable from them." The F
High Court was fully justified In quashing the proceedings against
the accused as.far as offences under ss.,467, 471 and 120B, I.P.C.
were concerned, not because they were covered by s. ]f)5 of the
Code but "because allegations contained in the complaint did not
constitute these. offences. The High Court was further fully justified
in directing. that other offences mentioned above did not require a G
. complaint under s. 195 and wou.ld have to be tried.
rn· the view ,that we .take it is not. necessary for us to decide
the broader question of law posed by the High Court, i.e., ·whether
or not offences under ss. 467, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. along with other H
offences, were covered bys. 195 of the Code .
•
..
·1
742 · SVPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 s. fl R.
I
A
We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the. High Court and
dismiss the·appeals and the special leave petitions and direct that
I . .
cases under sections 262, 263, 380/34 and 420/34, Indian Penal Code
be tried without aily complaint under section 195 of the Code.
,B H.S.K. I. Appeals & Petitions dismissed;·
.•
'
• I
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "criminal procedure"Sign in to search