Withdrawing Suit In Which Forged Documents Were Submitted Would Not Automatically Result In Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently held that withdrawal of the suit wherein forged documents were submitted would not automatically result in the quashing of the criminal proceedings lodged against the plaintiff by the respondent to the suit.A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “Merely because the suit was withdrawn would not take away the fact of forgery or use of forged documents against the respondent. This aspect would have to be dealt with by the trial Court and the necessary finding to be given in relation thereto.”Petitioner Vasanthi had approached the court seeking to quash the order dated 26.09.2017, taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 420, 419, 423, 415, 417, 465, 471 and 468 of IPC and issuing summons to her.The petitioner argued that a document which is alleged to have been forged has been forged outside the Court and allegedly made use of in a suit and as such, in terms of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C, it is only the Court before which the alleged document has been produced who can initiate proceedings against the petitioner and not the complainant.Further, it was argued the complainant Umesh G D has no locus inasmuch as the property which has been claimed by the complainant is Site No.4 whereas the property as regards which the alleged forgery has occurred is Site No.6 and the same does not relate to the property of the complainant and therefore, there is no locus to file a complaint.Finally, it was contended that the suit in O.S.No.209/2015 itself has been withdrawn. Hence, the question of any proceedings being initiated for alleged forgery would not arise. The petitioner is not deriving any benefit. The allegation of an offence of forgery cannot be made against him.The respondent opposed the petition arguing that on the basis of the forged document having been used in O.S.No.209/2015 and the suit having been filed against respondent No.2 – complainant herein, that the complainant was forced to file the complaint. The suit was filed on 24.11.2015. The complaint was lodged on 7.12.2015 alleging the forgery which had taken place. The suit having been withdrawn only on 14.12.2019 much subsequently the complaint having been filed and cognizance having been taken, the same ought to proceed.The bench relied on an Apex court judgment in the case of Bandekar Brothers Private Limited & another vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni & others (2020), wherein it is held that insofar as a forgery of a document committed outside the Court but used inside the Court the bar under Section 195 would not apply.Thus it held “An aggrieved party against whom if forged or fabricated document is made use of in a Court of law would have a right to file a criminal complaint as regards such forgery and fabrication the bar under Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C, does not apply.”It added, “The Court before which forged document is produced could also take action against such a person under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C, both the prosecution by the private party under regular criminal law and the prosecution by the Court would not amount to double jeopardy.”Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the complainant would not have a locus to file a complaint, the Court said “The forgery allegedly having occurred and immediately thereafter a suit having been filed by the petitioner on 24.11.2015, respondent lodged a complaint on 7.12.2015, since this document was sought to be used against respondent. The fact that the petitioner had filed a suit using said forged document against respondent would be categorically, on its own, establish the locus of respondent to file a complaint, since suit was filed against respondent.”It thus held that the respondent against whom said document is used can always complain about and seek for action being taken as regards a document which has been forged or fabricated.Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.Appearance: Advocate Sanket M.Yenagi, for Petitioner.Advocate Karan Khivesra for Respondent. Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 234Case Title: Vasanthi AND Umesh G D Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9791 OF 2017Click Here To Read/Download Order

Withdrawing Suit In Which Forged Documents Were Submitted Would Not Automatically Result In Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags