In a High Court of Judicature during Madras
Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH
Criminal Original Petition No.14889 of 2013
1. The Commissioner of Police,Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
E-4, Abiramapuram Police Station,Chennai-600 028. ..Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed underneath territory 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to approach a 2nd respondent to register an FIR on a petitioner’s censure antiquated 04.02.2013, examine a same and record a final news in suitability with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Saravanavel
For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, A.P.P.,
The benefaction petition has been filed seeking for a instruction to a 2nd respondent to register a box on a petitioner’s censure antiquated 04.02.2013, examine a same and record a final news in suitability with law.
2. Case of a petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
Petitioner is a father of one Narayanee @ Krithika. A box in HMOP No.383 of 2007 is tentative between a postulant and his mom before a Family Court during Chennai. In a pronounced petition, detached from other diverse petitions, I.A.Nos.486, 1649 and 2429 of 2010 and 2035 of 2011are pending; of which, I.A.Nos.486 and 1649 of 2010 have been filed by a mom on seductiveness of a teenager child Keerthana to raise a upkeep and to compensate a educational losses respectively. I.A.No.2429 of 2010 has been filed by a mom to strike off a counterclaim and I.A.No.2035 of 2011 has been filed by a postulant to scold a sequence of maintenance. During a pronounced enquiry in a pronounced I.As., on 09.04.2004, 23 papers were filed by a mom Krithika by her energy representative Viswanathan and a same were noted as Exs.P-1 to P-23. Among which, Ex.P-16 is a document, that is claimed by a pronounced Krithika to be a request released by a Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
3. It is a serve box of a postulant that a pronounced request is a self-existent and a fake document. The postulant was sensitive by a Ministry of External Affairs by a minute antiquated 10.06.2012 that it seems to be a fabricated/forged document. The postulant done a censure antiquated 04.02.2013 to a 1st respondent seeking to trigger suitable rapist record for forgery and perjury opposite Krithika and her energy of profession Viswanathan for carrying built a request and producing a same before a Family Court as evidence, and a same was forwarded to a 2nd respondent for holding action; though a 2nd respondent did not take any action. Hence, a benefaction petition has been filed to register a box on his complaint.
4. Heard a schooled warn for a postulant as good as a schooled Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. It is a box of a postulant that in a box tentative between him and his mom in HMOPNo.383 of 2007 before a Family Court, Chennai, his mom noted a request supposed to be released by a Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and a same was noted as Ex.P-16. It is a box of a postulant that a pronounced request is a fake one and, hence, a postulant had sent an focus on 16.04.2012 to a Ministry of External Affairs underneath RTI Act to verify, possibly Ex.P-16 is a genuine request or or not? But a Regional Passport Officer sent a respond antiquated 10.06.2012 that a request seems to be a fabricated/forged document. That apart, a postulant had perceived a respond antiquated 05.07.2012 from a Regional Passport Officer in response to a RTI Application antiquated 26.04.2012. The questions lifted by a postulant in his minute antiquated 26.04.2012 with courtesy to Ex.P-13 and a answers given by a Regional Passport Officer by his minute antiquated 10.06.2012 are as follows:
Questions lifted by a postulant Reply given by a Department
1. Whether this request is released by we ?
2. If it is released by you, on what basement we have released (as my pass comes underneath informal pass bureau during Chennai) and also on what basement we have mentioned several essence of a document?
Not released by this office.
3. Whether we have released any other document(s) relating to me to Narayanee ?
No. No record is available
6. After removing these answers from a Regional Passport Officer, a postulant has lodged a censure with a 1st respondent military to trigger movement opposite his mom and energy representative for their impasse in producing a fake request before a court, that is punishable underneath a supplies of Indian Penal Code. The pronounced censure that was given to a 1st respondent was forwarded to a 2nd respondent and a 2nd respondent, after recording a matter of energy agent, has lifted a doubt with courtesy to a office of military questioning a offence. Therefore, they have not taken any serve movement in a matter. On 06.05.2013, a postulant sent an focus underneath a RTI Act to know about a standing of a complaint. But a Inspector of Police, a 2nd respondent sent a respond antiquated 17.05.2013 to a queries lifted by a petitioner. The questions lifted by a postulant and a answers given by a 2nd respondent are as follows:
Questions lifted by a postulant Reply given by a 2nd respondent
1. Whether FIR has been filed on a pronounced indicted – if it is so, in what sections and a benefaction theatre of a record on a FIR.
No box purebred opposite a petition antiquated 04.02.2013 elite by a petitoner Thiru S.Karthick.
2. If a FIR is not filed a specific reason for a same?
The forgery papers pronounced in a censure was filed by a opposite postulant in a family justice is lies within a devalue of a High Court a Court usually confirm required movement on this if it is hold fit.
3. Copies of a petition filed by me antiquated 04.02.2013 ?
4. Copy of a matter if perceived from a indicted chairman ?
By giving a above accessible answers, a 2nd respondent voiced doubts about a office of a military to examine a corruption given already a request was noted in a Court. Aggrieved over a same, a benefaction petition has been filed.
7. It is a categorical acquiescence of a schooled warn for a postulant that a 2nd respondent is carrying office to perform a censure and examine a same given a request was combined outward a justice and thereafter, filed and noted in a justice proceedings.
8. Per contra, it is a acquiescence of a schooled Additional Public Prosecutor that underneath territory 195(1)(b((ii) Cr.P.C. will work as a bar for a military to perform a censure given a request was already noted in a justice proceedings. The usually choice accessible to a postulant is to plead territory 340 of Cr.P.C.before a endangered court.
9. In perspective of a arguments modernized by both sides, a core doubt that has to be deliberate is, possibly a military authorities can register a box for formulating a fake document, that was allegedly noted in a march of justification before a Court ?
10. The visualisation relied on by a schooled warn for a postulant reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 (Iqbal Singh Marwah and another .vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another) is giving a wise answer for this issue. The significant aspects of a cited box would uncover that in a probate proceedings, a petition was contested by a respondents on a belligerent that a Will was forged. Hence, a respondents changed an focus before a justice endangered requesting a justice to record a rapist censure opposite a appellants. A respond to a pronounced focus was filed on 27.07.1994; though a pronounced focus was not likely of. Hence, a respondents filed a rapist censure before a justice of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi for charge underneath sections 192,193, 463, 464, 465, 467, 469, 471, 499 and 500 IPC on a appellants and their mom on a belligerent that a Will constructed by a appellants was a fake and fictitious document. The schooled Metropolitan Magistrate hold that a doubt possibly a Will was a genuine request or a fake one, was an emanate before a District Judge in a probate record where a Will had been filed, Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C. work as a bar for holding knowledge of a offences underneath sections 192, 193, 463, 464, 471, 475 and476 IPC. The censure was accordingly discharged by sequence antiquated 02.05.1998. Subsequently, a respondents in that box filed a rapist rider opposite a sequence of schooled Metropolitan Magistrate before a Sessions Court, who relying on a box of Sachida Nand Singh .vs. State of Bihar reported in (1998) 2 SCC 493, hold that a bar contained in territory 195(1)(b)(ii) would not request where forgery of a request was committed even before a prolongation of a pronounced request in a Court. The rider petition was accordingly authorised and a matter was remanded to a Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for move in suitability with law. The appellants challenged a sequence upheld by a schooled Sessions Judge by filing a petition underneath territory 482 Cr.P.C. before a Delhi High Court, though a same was dismissed. Aggrieved over a same, a appellants elite S.L.P. before a Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been celebrated as under:
“25. An lengthened interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby a bar combined by a pronounced sustenance would also work where after elect of an act of forgery a request is subsequently constructed in court, is able of good misuse. As forked out in Sachida Nand Singh after scheming a fake request or committing an act of forgery, a chairman might conduct to get a move instituted in any civil, rapist or income court, possibly by himself or by someone set adult by him and simply record a request in a pronounced proceeding. He would so be stable from charge possibly during a instance of a private celebration or a military until a court, where a request has been filed, itself chooses to record a complaint. The lawsuit might be a enlarged one due to that a tangible hearing of such a chairman might be behind indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be frequency unpropitious to a seductiveness of a multitude during large.
26. Judicial notice can be taken of a fact that a courts are routinely demure to approach filing of a rapist censure and such a march is frequency adopted. It will not be satisfactory and scold to give an interpretation that leads to a conditions where a chairman purported to have committed an corruption of a form enumerated in proviso (b)(ii) is possibly not placed for hearing on comment of non-filing of a censure or if a censure is filed, a same does not come to a judicious end. Judging from such an angle will be in accord with a element that an infeasible or reckless outcome should be avoided. In Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion (3rd Edn.), para 313, a element has been settled in a following manner:
“The justice seeks to equivocate a construction of an dramatization that produces an infeasible or reckless result, given this is doubtful to haver been dictated by Parliament. Sometimes, however, there are major reasons for requesting such a construction, for example, where it appears that Parliament unequivocally dictated it or a verbatim definition is too strong”.
33. In perspective of a contention done above,we are of a opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been rightly motionless and a perspective taken therein is a scold view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be captivated usually when a offences enumerated in a pronounced sustenance have been committed with honour to a request after it has been constructed or given in justification in a move in any justice i.e. during a time when a request was in cutodia legis.”
11. Therefore, a reading of a pronounced paragraphs would clearly uncover that territory 195(1)(b)(ii)Cr.P.C.will not work as a bar to perform a censure by a military where forgery of a request was committed even before a pronounced request was constructed in a Court. In a present case, it is a specific claim of a complainant that a request was built outward a Court and noted during a march of proceedings. Therefore, in my deliberate opinion, a respondents are carrying office to perform a complaint.
In perspective of a above reasons, a second respondent is destined to cruise a censure and if a allegations contained in a censure discloses a elect of any cognizable offence, a second respondent is destined to register a case, examine a same and ensue serve in suitability with law. Criminal Original petition is likely of accordingly.
Index: Yes. 08.07.2013
1. The Commissioner of Police,Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
E-4, Abiramapuram Police Station,Chennai-600 028.
3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.