The Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition said that Section 195 (I) (b) bars the Court taking cognizance of an offence, in which, forgery has been committed in a documents filed in case pending in any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, if such forgery has been made in any Court proceedings, then the concerned Court should file a complaint as provided under Section 340 CrPC.

A Single Bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Vishwanath.

The criminal revision has been filed for challenging the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC, Basti in Criminal Misc Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti.

By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for directing the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti to register and investigate the criminal case against the opposite party No 2.

Counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C alleging that his younger brother, namely, Shivnath (opposite party No 2) committed forgery and obtained the registered will deed by his father-Drigpal on 16.05.1994.

He further submitted that the revisionist had filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti.

In the aforesaid suit, revisionists had challenged the will deed dated 16.05.1994, which was executed in favour of opposite party No 2 (Shivnath). This suit has been decreed in favour of the revisionist vide order dated 04.04.1995 and will be executed in favour of the opposite party No 2 has been cancelled.

After ten months of the decree of the aforesaid suit, opposite party No 2 instituted Original Suit for cancellation of the aforesaid order dated 04.04.1995. The aforesaid suit instituted by the opposite party no 2 was rejected by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti on 25.01.1997.

Against the order dated 25.01.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), opposite party No 2 filed revision before District Judge Basti, which was also rejected vide order dated 12.11.1998. Against the aforesaid order of the Revisional Court, opposite party No 2 also filed a writ petitioner before the Court, which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 08.01.1999.

The opposite party No 2 after concealment of earlier order passed by competent Court cancelling the will deed, filed mutation proceedings with false affidavit and forged cancelled will dated 16.05.1994 before Tehsildar-Sadar, District Basti on the basis of aforesaid affidavit and will deed, the Court concerned passed order in favour of opposite party No 2 on 23.07.2007 and directed the Revenue Authority to record the name of opposite party No 2 in place of his father-Digpal on the basis of aforesaid will deed.

After knowledge of the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2007, the revisionist filed recall application along with relevant details, Tahsildar, Sadar, District Basti vide order dated 04.02.2009 allowed the recall application of the revisionist and directed to record the name of revisionist and his real brother in place of their father in revenue record. Against the aforesaid order, opposite party No 2 also filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Basti under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, which was rejected vide order dated 30.03.2010.

Subsequently, the opposite party No 2 concealing the earlier proceedings initiated before the authority concerned, instituted the further mutation proceedings under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act 1901 for recording his name over the property of his father, but it was rejected vide order dated 06.09.2022.

The Court noted that the trial Court has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC on the ground that in his application, revisionist/applicant has prayed for lodging FIR against the opposite party Nos 2 and 3 for fraud and forgery. Although the disputed will dated 16.05.1994 was cancelled by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti, but opposite party Nos 2 and 3 by filing false affidavit and aforesaid forged will in the Court of Tehsildar, Sadar, District Basti, vide order dated 04.02.2009 obtained their name mutated in the revenue record.

In the impugned order, trial Court has mentioned the registration of FIR regarding filing of forged documents in a Court proceedings is barred under Section 195 (1) (b) (i) CrPC. The trial Court has given reason that for the alleged offences only a complaint case can be instituted by the Court, in whose judicial proceedings, false affidavit or forged documents have been filed, therefore, for the alleged offences no order for registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) CrPC could be passed.

“From the perusal of averments made in the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC, it transpires that alleged forgery in affidavit and will deed was not done while they were already been filed in the case pending in different Courts. The alleged false affidavit or forged document were prepared outside the Court and the same has been filed in the judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court. Thus, the bar against taking cognizance of a criminal case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances given in the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC.

Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sachida Nand Singh (supra), it is obvious that Magistrate has wrongly held that Section 195 (1) (b) CrPC bars registration of FIR even in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court and thereafter, it has been filed in a judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court.

Apart from this Section 195 (1) (b) CrPC, imposes no bar on registration of a criminal case relating to such forge documents, it merely bars that the Magistrate shall not take cognizance of an offence regarding such forged document unless the Court, in which, forgery has been committed, filed a complaint case in accordance with the provision of Section 340 CrPC. The Magistrate has not discussed or given any other reason for rejecting the application filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC and also has not considered the other point raised in the application for registering a criminal case regarding alleged forged affidavit and false will.

From the above discussion, I am of the view that while passing the impugned order, the Magistrate has committed illegality and has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him, in accordance with law”, the Court observed while allowing the criminal revision.

The Court set aside the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC, Basti.

The Supreme Court on Thursday granted interim relief to Maharashtra BJP MLA Jaykumar Gore in a document forgery case and stayed his arrest till July 1, when the court will take up his anticipatory bail plea.

Gore had challenged the Bombay High Court’s decision to dismiss his anticipatory bail plea in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court vacation bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia granted the interim protection from arrest till further orders.

A case had been registered against BJP MLA Jaykumar Gore from Satara in Maharashtra and five others by the Dahiwadi Police for allegedly grabbing land by making fake documents in the name of a deceased person.

A man called Mahadev Piraji Bhise had lodged a complaint in this regard.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Samajwadi party leader Azam Khan, his son Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan in a criminal forgery case.

The court has directed that they will be released on bail after the Trial Court concerned in the state of Uttar Pradesh records the informant’s statement in the case within four weeks.

While hearing the plea, Justice AM Khanwilkar observed that the problem of a criminal Justice system is a systematic problem.

Today, during the hearing of matter before the bench presided by Justices AM Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of the appellants. While seeking bail, he submitted that, “There are 87 FIRs are being filed against them as if these people do not have anything else to do in Uttar Pradesh and interestingly, in 84 FIRs, bail has been granted by the court. Such multiplicity of FIR clearly shows that the allegations charged against are baseless.”

Additional Solicitor General Raju argued that he is a habitual offender and committed forgery. Land worth millions or may be billions or more rupees was encroached or grabbed by him.

The Supreme Court asked has he filed any discharged application in this FIR?

ASG Raju- Yes

Supreme Court asked, are you sure?

ASG- Yes that is coming tomorrow.

Justice AM Khanwilkar said there are number of issues where date of birth is issue pending before the courts in India, at least till 90s. Once the entire investigation is over then basically It a documentary evidence. It’s one word against the other and there will be evidence from both the sides. Keeping a person then in custody when there is evidence from both the sides, will it be fair? If there is something serious we certainly take a note of it.

Also Read: Supreme Court says states can’t withdraw cases against MPs, MLAs without High Court approval

ASG- kindly look at his criminal antecedents and he is influential person.

The Supreme Court has said in this particular FIR the bail should be granted according to us.

ASG- Statement of informant Akash Saxena should be recorded.

Kapil Sibal – he is a BJP leader and same person is the informant in other matters.

ASG- yes I am saying he is the same person.

The Court said we will direct that the trial court should record the statement of informant within four weeks.

Sibal interjected and submitted that he has already get the bail in other matter. First he got the bail in passport matter, now they have lodged FIR in the PAN Card matter. I am only on the practice which they are following.

The court said to Kapil Sibal, “we are not going to record any reasons, that will be influence the discharge application.”

After hearing all the contentions, the bench comprising of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna held that, “The investigation for the second offence has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed on 27.08.2020 and the trial court has taken cognizance for the offence, continuing detention of the appellants may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. The appellant is being released on bail in connection with the offence, they must abide by all the conditions as imposed by the trial court for releasing them including not to influence the witnesses and tamper shreds of evidence. We direct the release the appellants to be released on bail, after the statement of the informant is recorded in the trial Court.”

The apex court also states that, “The prosecution must make sure that the informant should be present in the court on August 16 when his recording of the statement may proceed subject to an order to be passed on discharge application which we are informed that it is to be heard on 11th August 2021. As aforesaid, the recording of evidence should be completed within 4 weeks from today and compliance report submitted to this court in that regard within the same time.”

“The appellant through counsel undertakes to extend full cooperation to the trial court for recording of evidence of informant within the specified time,” said the Apex Court. “This is Common order we are passing,” Sibal said the court.

Also Read: Pegasus snooping: Supreme Court expresses displeasure at parallel debate on social media by petitioners

The Special Leave Petition was filed challenging the order passed by Allahabad High Court wherein the High Court had rejected three bail applications stating that it will not be in the public interest, filed by Senior SP Leader Md. Azam Khan and his disqualified U.P. MLA son who were arrested in the case of cheating, forgery and obtaining a fake PAN card fraudulently for the latter.

The FIR has been filed under the Section 420,467,468,471 and 120B of IPC and Section 12(1A) of Passport Act, 1967 at the Police Station, Civil Lines, district Rampur. The allegations are against the father-son duo of forging and fraudulently obtaining PAN card and passport. It was submitted that the birth records as per the Highschool certificate and the nomination application filed for contesting 34 Swar Assembly Constituency, Rampur recording another date of birth, though, it is alleged that at the time of filing of nomination paper, the subsequent PAN was not linked with the bank account. It is alleged that the father-son duo conspired together in filing nomination papers by mentioning the wrong PAN.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Uttar Pradesh government challenging the bail of Tanzin Fatima, the wife of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, and son Mohammad Abdullah.

A bench headed by the Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian has dismissed the petition. During the hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the State has submitted that there are 20 cases against him.

The CJI replied, “you move for those cases. The judgement is correct.

It is alleged that Azam Khan and Tanzeen Fatima have made two birth certificate of their son. One from Nagar Palika Parishad , Rampur and the other one is from Municipal Corporation, Lucknow. There is a great difference between the two birth dates.

Abdullah Azam Khan said that he had no role in making birth certificate. Therefore, be released on bail. Tanzin Fatima said that bail should be granted for being a woman. Therefore, both were ordered to be released immediately but Azam Khan was ordered to be released after recording the statement of the complainant.

Abdullah Azam Khan is accused of contesting the assembly elections by taking advantage of a fake birth certificate.

Read Also: Stay on farm laws: Supreme Court order enters others’ territory