In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has pronounced a crucial judgment on the initiation of complaints related to forgery allegations. The case involved intricate legal arguments concerning the administration of justice and the expediency of filing a complaint. The decision is expected to have far-reaching implications in the realm of criminal law and judicial proceedings.
Facts
- First appellant filed anticipatory bail application in Madurai on 18.08.2016, claiming to have signed the affidavit and vakalatnama in presence of an advocate in Madurai on 17.08.2016.
- Allegations were made against appellants for filing false vakalatnama and playing fraud on the court by misrepresenting presence in Madurai while being in Singapore on the said dates.
- Criminal case registered against all appellants under various sections of IPC and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
- Preliminary objection raised by State challenging the maintainability of bail petition and vakalatnama citing the appellant’s departure for Singapore on the mentioned dates.
- First appellant left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016 and third appellant left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016.
- FIR registered against appellants for offences of forgery and fraudulent representation before K. Pudur Police Station, Madurai.
- Anticipatory bail application of appellants rejected by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 14.09.2016.
- High Court found prima facie evidence of forgery in the vakalatnama signed outside Madurai but represented as signed in Madurai.
- High Court included sections of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in the case following investigation.
- High Court declined to grant pre-arrest bail to appellants based on the findings of forged documents and misrepresentation of facts.
- High Court directed Registrar to lodge a complaint against the appellants for alleged forgery in signing the vakalatnama
- No coercive action to be taken against the appellants in FIR No.5/2016 till 22.08.2016 if they join the investigation
- Appellants directed to appear before the court on 29.08.2016 to explain the preliminary objection
- Appellants submitted an affidavit stating the date in the vakalatnama was an inadvertent mistake
- High Court found the explanations by appellants unsatisfactory and contradictory to the written version in the vakalatnama
- High Court noted that appellant No.1 denied signing the vakalatnama in Madurai as claimed
- High Court held prima facie evidence that the document was forged and produced falsely
- High Court directed Registrar to lodge a complaint against the appellants with the police station
- Appellants filed an anticipatory bail application in the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench
Also Read: High Court’s Decision on Large Gala Allotment Dispute: Supreme Court Verdict
Arguments
- The Supreme Court had directed no coercive action be taken against the appellants in two specific crimes and granted interim protection from arrest.
- Argument made by Mr. Sanjay Hegde that the High Court overlooked the clerical error in the vakalatnama and erred in not considering the ‘in the interest of justice’ aspect before directing a complaint against the appellants.
- The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Mr. Yogesh Kanna contended that the appellants committed fraud by not signing the vakalatnama, and their influential positions hampered the investigation process.
- Mr. Yogesh Kanna relied on the case of Sachida Nand Singh to argue that forgery affecting the administration of justice is a serious offense.
- The High Court’s decision to dismiss the anticipatory bail application based on the vakalatnama submission was criticized as being an error in law.
- The State of Tamil Nadu argued for upholding the FIR and the High Court’s directions, citing the seriousness of the offense committed.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Analysis
- The court analyzed the requirement of Section 340 Cr.P.C. and emphasized that the court should record its satisfaction indicating it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry.
- The court considered the question of lodging a complaint against the appellants for forgery and creation of a forged document in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
- It was highlighted that intentional deception or fraud is crucial to establish an offense affecting the administration of justice.
- The court examined the necessity of satisfaction before lodging a complaint and emphasized on the need for evidence of intent to cause damage or injury.
- The court scrutinized the statements made in the vakalatnama and observed that inadvertent mistakes, without intention to misrepresent, may not amount to fraud or forgery.
- Citing precedents, the court emphasized the importance of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance to justify a prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
- The court assessed the sequence of events presented by the appellants and found no substantial grounds for forgery, quashing the FIR and charge sheet in the case.
- Emphasizing on the need for a prima facie case for forgery, the court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal prosecution against the appellants.
- Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code is the exception and not the rule.
- Section 482 does not confer any new powers on the High Court but saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code.
- Inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of court.
- The appellants admitted their signatures in the vakalatnama, and any discrepancies were considered as an inadvertent mistake.
- Possibility of appellants being convicted for alleged offences of forgery and making forged documents seems unlikely.
- Prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. should only be launched if expedient in the interest of justice, not based on mere allegations or personal vendetta.
- Summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, especially when directed by the High Court.
- The exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not bound by inflexible rules and should serve the ends of justice.
- Quashing proceedings may be justified if their initiation or continuation amounts to abuse of the court’s process or if it serves the ends of justice.
- Quoting previous judgments such as Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judge Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Sachida Nand Singh with approval.
- Before filing the complaint, the court may conduct a preliminary enquiry to determine if it is in the interest of justice to investigate the offenses mentioned in Section 195(1)(b).
- The court must consider the impact on the administration of justice rather than the extent of harm caused to the affected person in cases of forgery or forged documents.
- The court may decide not to file a complaint if it deems that it is not expedient in the interest of justice.
- The court must assess the expediency of filing a complaint before proceeding under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
- The court should only make a complaint if it determines that it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so.
- High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants in Crime No.5/2016.
- Supreme Court granted interim protection to the appellants in the same case.
- Appellants claimed to have compromised with the victim and filed a quash petition in the Madras High Court.
- The High Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet based on the compromise and to meet the ends of justice.
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Decision
- Interim protection granted to the appellants in Crime No.5/2016 extended till disposal of the case
- Appellants in Crime No.276/2016 can approach High Court for quashing of the case
- Interim protection granted in Crime No.276/2016 extended till disposal of the case
- FIR in Crime No.1331/2016 and charge sheet quashed
- Appellant No.1 granted interim protection by the order dated 22.11.2016
- High Court refused anticipatory bail to first appellant, but granted it to appellants No.2 and 3
- Impugned order directing criminal complaint against appellants set aside
- Appellants not to initiate further proceedings after quashing of FIR in Crime No.1331/2016
- Appellants granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.276/2016 till disposal of the case
Case Title: SASIKALA PUSHPA Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000855-000855 / 2019
