Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.340 – In a sexual harassment case against the appellants, the appellants filed anticipatory bail applications along with Vakalatnama before the Madurai High Court – While filing the Vakalatnama, it was stated therein that it was signed by appellants before their counsel on 17.08.2016 at Madurai – Challenging the maintainability of bail petition and Vakalatnama, the respondent-State filed preliminary objection and submitted that the Vakalatnama bore signature dated 18.08.2016, however, the first appellant had left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016 at 23.15 hours and third appellant had left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016 at 9.30 AM – High Court directed the appellants to appear before the Court on 29.08.2016 and to give their explanation with regard to said preliminary objection – Accordingly appellants appeared and stated that the date mentioned in the Vakalatnama was an inadvertent mistake – High Court found the explanation unsatisfactory and held that the document appeared to be forged and was signed and executed outside Madurai and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge the complaint against the appellants – Accordingly, complaint was lodged against the appellants under ss.193, 466, 468 and 471 IPC – Aggrieved appellants filed instant appeals – Held: There could be no two views about the proposition that even if forgery was committed outside the precincts of the court and long before its production in the court, it would also be treated as one affecting the administration of justice – But in the instant case, the Vakalatnama filed by the appellants seeking anticipatory bail could not be said to be a forged document – Appellants had admitted their signatures in the Vakalatnama and had taken plea that it was mistakenly recorded that it was signed on 18.08.2016 at Madurai – Explanation tendered by the appellants appeared plausible – Fraud implies intentional deception aimed of achieving some wrongful gain or causing wrongful loss or injury to another – Intention being the mens rea is the essential ingredient to hold that a fraud has been played upon the court – High Court was not justified in terming the said mistake or error as fraud – The direction to lodge criminal complaint against the appellants is set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s.195(1)(b).
Penal Code, 1860: s.195(1)(b) – Prosecution under – Held: Under s.340, the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not in every case – Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in s.195(1)(b), the court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient in the interest of justice” – The language in s.340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.340. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 It is fairly well settled that before lodging of the complaint, it is necessary that the court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint. It is not necessary that the court must use the actual words of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; but the court should record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. [Para 10] [325-G-H; 326-A]
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370 : [2005] 2 SCR 708 – relied on.
2. It appeared from the vakalatnama that appellants No.1 and 3 signed the vakalatnama in Madurai on 17.08.2016; but actually the first appellant did not visit Madurai and left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016 at 11.15 PM. In the affidavit filed by the appellants before the High Court, the first appellant took the plea that it was a clerical error. Appellant No.1 stated that on 16.08.2016, she and her son-appellant No.2 signed the vakalatnama in New Delhi and that the same was signed through appellant No.3 who was in Bengaluru. It was stated that after receiving the vakalatnama, appellant No.3 reached Madurai on the same day evening by road and handed over the same to the lawyer and returned back to Bengaluru by road on the same day and thereafter, appellant No.3 left for Singapore in the morning of 18.08.2016 at 09.30 AM. According to the appellants, when the vakalatnama was filed in the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench, it was mistakenly recorded that it was signed on 18.08.2016 in Madurai. The explanation given by the appellants appeared plausible and there was no reason to disbelieve the same and their affidavit dated 29.08.2016. [Para 15] [328-C-F]
3. A vakalatnama is only a document which authorizes an advocate to appear on behalf of the party and by and large, it has no bearing on the merits of the case. There is no reason as to why a party would deliberately furnish a false date and place in the vakalatnama. The appellants have admitted their signatures in the vakalatnama. The sequence of events as stated in the affidavit of the appellants did not make out a case of forgery. The High Court did not record any finding as to why it rejected the plea of the appellants made in the affidavit which was also reiterated by them in their explanation before the court when they personally appeared before the court. [Para 16] [328-F-G; 329-B]
4. There could be no two views about the proposition that even if forgery is committed outside the precincts of the court and long before its production in the court, it would also be treated as one affecting the administration of justice. But in the instant case, the vakalatnama filed by the appellants seeking anticipatory bail cannot be said to be a forged document. The appellants have admitted their signatures in the vakalatnama. They only allege that it was mistakenly recorded that it was signed on 18.08.2016 at Madurai in the presence of the advocate. Of course, the version in the vakalatnama was an incorrect statement. The High Court was not justified in terming the said mistake or error as fraud. Fraud implies intentionally deception aimed at achieving some wrongful gain or causing wrongful loss or injury to another. In the absence of any material to substantiate the allegations, the High Court was not justified in accusing the appellants fraud. Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama was wrong, mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to create a forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the appellants. There is no prima facie evidence to show that the appellants had intended to cause damage or injury or any other acts. Since the disputed version in the vakalatnama appears to be an inadvertent mistake with no intention to make misrepresentation, the direction of the High Court to lodge a criminal complaint against the appellants cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. [Paras 18, 19, 21] [329-F-H; 330-A-B; D-E; 331-C-D]
Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel (2017)
1 SCC 117 ; Chintamani Malviya v. High Court of M.P. (2018) 6 SCC 15 – relied on.
Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judge Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 ; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Another (2006) 7 SCC 188:[2006] 4 Suppl.
SCR 450 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.