M/S BANDEKAR BROTHERS PVT. LTD. & ANR v. PRASAD VASUDEV KENI, ETC.

This particular case was a criminal appeal that was decided on 2 September 2020. In this case, the Supreme Court has dealt with Section 190 Of the Criminal Procedure Code along with Section 191 And Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 which deals with giving false evidence and fabricating of false evidence respectively.

As per the facts of this case, the complainant had initially filed two complaints under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (referred to as Cr.P.C, henceforth). In the complaint, it was alleged that the accused had committed the offences of giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence which falls under Section 190 and 191 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to as IPC, henceforth). The accused are alleged to have committed forgery of debit notes and untrue entries in the financial records. Post this the complainant filed to convert such complaint into complaints of private nature placing reliance on the Iqbal case. The Judicial Magistrate converted the said complaint and issued process under Section 191,192 and 193 of the IPC. The Sessions Court allowed the revision petition and held that the restriction under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C is applicable and in addition to the same the requirements under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C are to be followed compulsorily. This was challenged in the High Court through a writ petition, but it was dismissed.

As per the contentions of the complainant was that the debit notes had been fabricated and falsely produced by the respondent in a fraudulent manner to make believe that the complainants owed money to the other party. The counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant placed his authority on the Iqbal case as the forged documents were forged before the proceedings of the case. Thus the precedent is applicable, and a private complaint would hence enjoy maintainability. He also placed reliance on several other cases to prove that the case applied to Section 195(1) (b)(i) as well as Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) and stated that the High Court relied on the The Iqbal case overruled the case.

Whereas the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that the ruling under the Iqbal case applied to only Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) as concluded in the High Court also. He said that "the debit notes, which were the sheet-anchor of the Appellants' case, cannot be said to have been forged within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC, as the debit notes, even if dishonestly or fraudulently made, had to be made within the intention of causing it to be believed that such debit notes were made by a person whom the person was making it knows that it was not made. Suppose the complaints are read as a whole. In that case, it will make it clear that the entirety of the complaints was in, or about, offences committed under Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC used/to be used in judicial proceedings and, therefore, fell squarely within Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC. He also argued that after conversion into a private complaint, the Magistrate issued the process only under Sections 191 to 193 of the IPC, which order remained unchallenged by the Appellants."

Concerning Iqbal's case, the decision was that the cases which fell under the ambit of Section 195 (1)(b)(i) of the CrPC, the document that is alleged to be forged should be custodia legis post which the forged act takes place. And if it is vice versa, a private complaint would hence then be maintainable. 

The main need was to differentiate solidly between the two sections and the Court noting the same held that, "Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attract the provisions of Section 191 to 193 of the IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC applies. What is important is that once these sections of the IPC are attracted, the offence should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. Thus, what is clear is that the offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court."

“Contrasted with Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC speaks of offences described in Section 463, and punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 of the IPC, when such offences are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.

What is conspicuous by its absence in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are the words "or in relation to", making it clear that if the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are attracted, then the offence alleged to have been committed must be committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis, and not an offence that may have occurred before the document being introduced in court proceedings. Indeed, it is this distinction that is vital in understanding the sheet anchor of the Appellant's case, namely, this Court's judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah."

The Court pointed towards the judgement that was laid down in the Narendra Kumar Srivastava case in 2019 and stated that when the matter is related to Section 195(1)(b)(i), the decision of the Iqbal case cannot be applied and if the false evidence is produced outside the judicial premises of the Court falling under Section 191 and Section 192 of the IPC, for such matter the decision of Iqbal's case is not made to apply for validation of a private complaint.

The Court further held that in the particular case there is the attraction of provision of Section 191 and Section 192 and no other provision. The Court concludingly held that "It seems to us that the baby and the bath-water have both been thrown out together. While it is correct to say that the order of conversion and issuing of the process after that on a private complaint may not be correct, yet the two complaints as originally filed can still be pursued. Once the Magistrate's order had been set aside, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have relegated the parties to the position before the original complaints had been converted into private complaints."

The Bench has then allowed for the reinstatement of the first two complaints in its original form paving the way for it to be pursued as per Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Thus, the Court has held that private complaints against offences envisaged under Section 191 and Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code relating to giving of false evidence and fabricating of false evidence will not be maintainable when the commission of the same is about the proceeding of the Court.