Shakeela and another v. State of U.P. and also set aside the order dated

Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate: Provided that- to (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed be (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such subordinate; Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. इस पकपर यह सपष हर जपतप हह नक नयपयपलय दपरप नकसक अपरपध कप सनजपन लवनव कव यनद दसतपववज, 16. जपलसपजक कप आधपर नयपयपलय कव समक पसतपत नकयप जपतप हह यप सपकय कव रप मम नदयप जपतप हह तर धपरप-195 दन०प०सन० (1) (b) (II) कव तहत सनजपन लवनव पर ररक लग जपतक हह और आपरपजधक नयपयपलय कर अपरपध कप सनजपन लवनव सव पनतबसनध कर नदयप जपतप हह जब तक नक नयपयपलय दपरप यप उसकक ओर सव पपजधकक त लरक सववक कक ओर सव धपरप-340 दन०प०सन० कव तहत ननधपरररत पनकयप कव अनपसपर जलजखत मम पररवपद दजर नहह कक जपतक हह। जलए, पसतपत पकरण मम नवपकक सनखयप-2 दरसत मरहममद कव दपरप रपकव श कप मपर आनद कव दन०प०सन० मम पसतपत नकयप गयप जजस पर नवदपन मपखय नयपनयक मजजसरट

17. नवरद एक पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप 156 (3) फह जपबपद दपरप पपररनप पत कव करनण तरप पसतपत अनभलवख कव अवलरकन कव पशचपतत तथयण कव आधपर पर सनजवय अपरपध कप हरनप पपतव हहए पपररनप पत धपरप 156 (3) नवरद परम ससचनप ररपररर कर पपररत नकयप गयप। नवपकक सनखयप-2 रपकव श दजर करनव तरप नवववचनप करनव कप आदवश नदनपनक 13.07.2021 कप मपर दपरप पशगनत पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप-195 दन०प०सन० पसतपत नकयप गयप हह। ननगरपनककतपरगण कप यह कहनप हह नक नवदपन अवर नयपयपलय दपरप उसकव पपररनप पत पर नयपनयक मससतषक कप पयरग नहह नकयप गयप। यह ननगरपनक रपकव श कप मपर कव दपरप पसतपत नहह नकयप गयप हह। दन०प०सन० सवककपर नकयप गयप और नवपककगण कव वर,

18. अवर नयपयपलय कक पतपवलक कव अवलरकन सव नवनदत हरतप हह नक रपकव श कप मपर -419,420,467,468,471,504,506 मरहममद जसरपज नवरद - ए -415/2022 कव अनपपपलन मम ननगरपनककतपर आनद कव धपरप हहए अनभयपकगण कप अपरपध व अनभयपकप शककलप कव मपनतव हहए आररप पत सनखयप नयपयपलय दपरप नदनपनक नकयप गयप।

27.10.2022 , नवरद मपकदमप अपरपध सनखयप -346 नयपयपलय कव आदवश नदनपननकत नदनपननकत

13.07.2021 अनतगरत भप०दन०सन० मम दजर नकयप गयप तरप नवववचनरपरपनत पयपरप सपकय पपतव , भप०दन०सन० मरहममद अहमद कव नवरद धपरप 420,467,468,471,504,506 भप०दन०सन० कप अपरपध सपनबत 25.09.2022 नयपयपलय मम पसतपत नकयप गयप जजस पर नदनपननकत कव रप मम दजर -420,467,468,471 -11300/2022

30.07.2021 कर सनजपन जलयप गयप और जर वपद सनखयप कव दपरप पसतपत पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप 156 (3)

19. ननगरपनककतपर कक ओर सव पसतपत अनभलवखण कव समबनध मम नवववचनपजधकपरक कव दपरप नवववचनप अवशय नकयप गयप हरगप। नवपकक सनखयप-2 दन०प०सन० कव करन तरप पसतपत अनभलवख कव समबनध मम भक ननगरपनककतपर कप करन हह नक पपरर दरसत मरहममद दपरप पपररनप पत मम फजर दसतपववज तरप अधसरप दसतपववज लगपयप गयप रप तरप कप छ तथयण कर नछपपयप गयप रप नकनतप उसक पपररनप पत पर नवववचनप कव उपरपनत आररप पत पवनषत नकयप जप चपकप हह जजसकप नवचपरण हरनप हह । यह तर नवचपरण उपरपनत हक पतप चलवगप नक पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप-156 (3). दन०प०सन० कव सपर पसतपत शपर पत कव करन तरप अनभलवख फजर हह यप अधसरप हह। हपलपननक मपननकय उचच नयपयपलय दपरप पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप-482 सनखयप-2116/2023 मम पपररत आदवश नदनपननकत 02.03.2023 दपरप आपरपजधक वपद सनखयप-11300/2022 कक अनगम कपयरवपहक जलससरनग कक अगलक नतजर तक सरनगत कर नदयप गयप हह तरप सनजपन कव समबनध मम मपननकय उचच नयपयपलय दपरप करई आदवश पपररत नहह नकयप गयप हह। अवर नयपयपलय पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप 156 (3)

20. दन०प०सन० पर आदवश पपररत करनव कव पशचपतत उसकर नवरद अपरपध कप सनजपन अवर नयपयपलय कव दपरप जलयप जप चपकप हह वपपस नहह लव सकतप रप। ननगरपनककतपरगण कव जजन तथयण पर पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप-195 दन०प०सन० पसतपत नकयप गयप उनकव समबनध मम ननगरपनककतपर कर नवचपरण नयपयपलय कव समक पनतरकप कप अवसर पपप हरगप और वव अपनक बपत नवचपरण नयपयपलय कव समक पसतपत कर सकतव हह। ददरपन पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप

21. अवर नयपयपलय दपरप पशनगत आदवश कर पपररत करतव समय यह उलवख नकयप हह नक पकरण मम आररप पत -156 (3) दपजखल हर चपकप हह। दन०प०सन० अरवप परम ससचनप ररपररर मम नकयव गयव करनण कक सतयतप अरवप असतयतप कर नवचपरण नयपयपलय दपरप हक दवखप जपनप समकचकन हरगप। वपद कव इस सतर पर पपरर दपरप नकयव गयव करनण कक सतयतप अरवप असतयतप पर करई भक नरपपणक नकयव जपनव कप न तर पयपरप कपरण हह और न नवचपरण सव पसवर इस समबनध मम अनभयपकगण पपरकगण रपकव श कप मपर आनद कक करई अजधससरनत उतपन हरतक हह। / जहपन तक ननगरपनककतपरगण कव नवदपन अजधवकप दपरप यह तकर

22. नक अवर नयपयपलय कव पशनगत आदवश मम वपद सनखयप तरप वपदक अरवप पनतवपदक कर गलत रप सव दनशरत नकयप गयप हह परनतप उक तकर जलनपककय तपनर कव समबनध मम हह और मपत इस आधपर पर अवर नयपयपलय कप आदवश ननरसत नकयव जपनव यरगय नहह हह। इसकव अलपवप ननगरपनक पपररनप पत मम नकयव गयव तथयपतमक करन अनतररक रप सव नकयव गयव हह परनतप उक तथयपतमक करन पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप-195 दन०प०सन० मम नहह कहव गयव हह। अतत नवदपन अवर नयपयपलय दपरप मपमलव कव समसत तथय एवन पररससरनतयण तरप पतपवलक पर उपलबध नवशलवषणरपरपनत जर पशनगत आदवश पपररत नकयप गयप हह उसमम करई नवजधक अननयनमततप, वर कप आदवश नवजधपसणर व औनचतयपसणर हह जजसमम और खपररज नकयव

23. अनभलवखकय सपकय कव तपनर अरवप कवतपजधकपर कप अभपव नहह पपयप जपतप हह। नवदपन मजजसरट हसतकवप कक करई आवशयकतप नहह हह। पररणपमतत नयपयपलय कक रपय मम ननगरपनक आधपरहकन हह, जपनव यरगय हह। आदवश ननगरपनक सनखयप 198/23 शकमतक शककलप आनद बनपम उतर पदवश रपजय आनद ननरसत कक जपतक हह। आदवश कक पमपनणत पनत कव सपर नवचपरण नयपयपलय कक पतपवलक अनवलमब नवचपरण नयपयपलय कर भवजक जपय। ननगरपनक पतपवलक ननयमपनपसपर दपजखल दफतर हर।"

7. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present revision has been filed.

8. Sri J.P.Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that trial court as also the Revisional Court erred in law and fact both in passing the impugned order(s) dated 20.09.2023 and 01.07.2025. In support of his case he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Versus Jasbir Singh reported in (2020) 12 SCC 96.

9. Learned A.G.A. Sri S.P. Tiwari, supported the order(s) in issue. He submits that a conjoint reading of the contents of application dated 02.08.2021 preferred by the applicant nos. 1 to 3 and opposite party no.3 under Section 195 Cr.P.C.would indicate that the order is justified. He submits that case of the present applicants is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah Versus Meenakshi Marwah reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370. The paragraph of the same, referred, is extracted hereinunder:- "23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded."

10. On the aforesaid it would be apt to indicate the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 10.09.2024, passed in the case of Arockiasamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Another;Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5805/2023. The relevant paras of the judgement are as under "3. The counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the High Court incorrectly noted that the civil litigation between the appellant(s) 16:36:20 IST Reason: and the respondents had not attained finality. In order to show the error in the High Court’s finding, the counsel refers to the judgment dated 09.04.2021 in the additional documents, under which, the learned Subordinate Judge, Satyamangalam had dismissed the OS No.21 of 2012 filed by M.M. Rangasamy. On the same date i.e., 09.04.2021, the same Court had allowed the O.S. No.154 of 2017 filed by A. Arokiasamy and Baby Arokiasamy.

4. With the above, the counsel for the appellant(s) argues that the High Court should not have allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash the criminal proceedings against respondents for inter alia filing forged documents in Court.

5. On the above, learned counsel for the State would support the SLP filed by the appellant(s) and submit that since forgery was alleged, the High Court should not have quashed the criminal proceeding.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that no doubt the concerned civil suits were disposed of on 09.04.2021 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Satyamangalam but the aggrieved party then preferred appeal and those are pending.

7. The above would indicate that the High Court proceeded on the wrong assumption that the civil litigation between the parties had not attained finality. That apart, in our considered opinion, the High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings by holding that there can be no FIR/private complaint for forgery of a document filed before Civil Court until the finality of the litigation. The High Court ignored the ratio of the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Another v. Meenakshi Marwah & Another reported in 2005 (4) SCC 370, wherein it has been held that there is no embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC to examine the criminal allegation of forgery of documents filed in Court, when such forgery is committed before its production in Court. The relevant extracts are reproduced herein: “25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate whereafter commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh [Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large. … “33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh [Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.” (Emphasis supplied)

8. In the present case, the allegation in the complaint is that the respondents had fraudulently obtained stamp paper and prepared an unregistered sale agreement. Thereafter, suit was filed by the respondents seeking certain reliefs and, in the suit, the forged document was filed. The allegations do not indicate that the documents were forged when the matter was sub-judice before the Civil Court. Accordingly, as per the ratio in Iqbal Singh (supra) the bar under Section 195(1) (b)(ii) of the CrPC is not attracted. Following the above, and noticing the apparent error in foundation of the impugned order of the High Court dated 06.10.2022, the same is set aside and quashed. The appeals are allowed. It is ordered accordingly.

9. Before parting, it is made clear that the present order is only in the context of the impugned order of the High Court dated 06.10.2022 and we have not pronounced on the merit of the pending case of either party."

11. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid as also the facts pleaded and material placed on record, and also the observations/findings given in the order(s) under challenge dated 20.09.2023 and 01.07.2025, this Court finds that the instant application is liable to be dismissed as it lacks merit, for the reasons it is the case of the revisionists that without disclosing correct facts the opposite party no.2, obtained the order dated 13.07.2021 from the Magistrate and also that charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed for the offence under Sections 420/467/438/471/504/506 IPC against the revisionists namely Smt. Shakila, Mohammad Ahmad, Mohammad Siraj, and opposite party no.3 Rakesh Kumar. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Jyoti/- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate: Provided that- to (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed be (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such subordinate; Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. इस पकपर यह सपष हर जपतप हह नक नयपयपलय दपरप नकसक अपरपध कप सनजपन लवनव कव यनद दसतपववज, 16. जपलसपजक कप आधपर नयपयपलय कव समक पसतपत नकयप जपतप हह यप सपकय कव रप मम नदयप जपतप हह तर धपरप-195 दन०प०सन० (1) (b) (II) कव तहत सनजपन लवनव पर ररक लग जपतक हह और आपरपजधक नयपयपलय कर अपरपध कप सनजपन लवनव सव पनतबसनध कर नदयप जपतप हह जब तक नक नयपयपलय दपरप यप उसकक ओर सव पपजधकक त लरक सववक कक ओर सव धपरप-340 दन०प०सन० कव तहत ननधपरररत पनकयप कव अनपसपर जलजखत मम पररवपद दजर नहह कक जपतक हह। जलए, पसतपत पकरण मम नवपकक सनखयप-2 दरसत मरहममद कव दपरप रपकव श कप मपर आनद कव दन०प०सन० मम पसतपत नकयप गयप जजस पर नवदपन मपखय नयपनयक मजजसरट

17. नवरद एक पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप 156 (3) फह जपबपद दपरप पपररनप पत कव करनण तरप पसतपत अनभलवख कव अवलरकन कव पशचपतत तथयण कव आधपर पर सनजवय अपरपध कप हरनप पपतव हहए पपररनप पत धपरप 156 (3) नवरद परम ससचनप ररपररर कर पपररत नकयप गयप। नवपकक सनखयप-2 रपकव श दजर करनव तरप नवववचनप करनव कप आदवश नदनपनक 13.07.2021 कप मपर दपरप पशगनत पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप-195 दन०प०सन० पसतपत नकयप गयप हह। ननगरपनककतपरगण कप यह कहनप हह नक नवदपन अवर नयपयपलय दपरप उसकव पपररनप पत पर नयपनयक मससतषक कप पयरग नहह नकयप गयप। यह ननगरपनक रपकव श कप मपर कव दपरप पसतपत नहह नकयप गयप हह। दन०प०सन० सवककपर नकयप गयप और नवपककगण कव वर,

18. अवर नयपयपलय कक पतपवलक कव अवलरकन सव नवनदत हरतप हह नक रपकव श कप मपर -419,420,467,468,471,504,506 मरहममद जसरपज नवरद - ए -415/2022 कव अनपपपलन मम ननगरपनककतपर आनद कव धपरप हहए अनभयपकगण कप अपरपध व अनभयपकप शककलप कव मपनतव हहए आररप पत सनखयप नयपयपलय दपरप नदनपनक नकयप गयप।

27.10.2022 , नवरद मपकदमप अपरपध सनखयप -346 नयपयपलय कव आदवश नदनपननकत नदनपननकत

13.07.2021 अनतगरत भप०दन०सन० मम दजर नकयप गयप तरप नवववचनरपरपनत पयपरप सपकय पपतव , भप०दन०सन० मरहममद अहमद कव नवरद धपरप 420,467,468,471,504,506 भप०दन०सन० कप अपरपध सपनबत 25.09.2022 नयपयपलय मम पसतपत नकयप गयप जजस पर नदनपननकत कव रप मम दजर -420,467,468,471 -11300/2022

30.07.2021 कर सनजपन जलयप गयप और जर वपद सनखयप कव दपरप पसतपत पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप 156 (3)

19. ननगरपनककतपर कक ओर सव पसतपत अनभलवखण कव समबनध मम नवववचनपजधकपरक कव दपरप नवववचनप अवशय नकयप गयप हरगप। नवपकक सनखयप-2 दन०प०सन० कव करन तरप पसतपत अनभलवख कव समबनध मम भक ननगरपनककतपर कप करन हह नक पपरर दरसत मरहममद दपरप पपररनप पत मम फजर दसतपववज तरप अधसरप दसतपववज लगपयप गयप रप तरप कप छ तथयण कर नछपपयप गयप रप नकनतप उसक पपररनप पत पर नवववचनप कव उपरपनत आररप पत पवनषत नकयप जप चपकप हह जजसकप नवचपरण हरनप हह । यह तर नवचपरण उपरपनत हक पतप चलवगप नक पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप-156 (3). दन०प०सन० कव सपर पसतपत शपर पत कव करन तरप अनभलवख फजर हह यप अधसरप हह। हपलपननक मपननकय उचच नयपयपलय दपरप पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप-482 सनखयप-2116/2023 मम पपररत आदवश नदनपननकत 02.03.2023 दपरप आपरपजधक वपद सनखयप-11300/2022 कक अनगम कपयरवपहक जलससरनग कक अगलक नतजर तक सरनगत कर नदयप गयप हह तरप सनजपन कव समबनध मम मपननकय उचच नयपयपलय दपरप करई आदवश पपररत नहह नकयप गयप हह। अवर नयपयपलय पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप 156 (3)

20. दन०प०सन० पर आदवश पपररत करनव कव पशचपतत उसकर नवरद अपरपध कप सनजपन अवर नयपयपलय कव दपरप जलयप जप चपकप हह वपपस नहह लव सकतप रप। ननगरपनककतपरगण कव जजन तथयण पर पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप-195 दन०प०सन० पसतपत नकयप गयप उनकव समबनध मम ननगरपनककतपर कर नवचपरण नयपयपलय कव समक पनतरकप कप अवसर पपप हरगप और वव अपनक बपत नवचपरण नयपयपलय कव समक पसतपत कर सकतव हह। ददरपन पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप

21. अवर नयपयपलय दपरप पशनगत आदवश कर पपररत करतव समय यह उलवख नकयप हह नक पकरण मम आररप पत -156 (3) दपजखल हर चपकप हह। दन०प०सन० अरवप परम ससचनप ररपररर मम नकयव गयव करनण कक सतयतप अरवप असतयतप कर नवचपरण नयपयपलय दपरप हक दवखप जपनप समकचकन हरगप। वपद कव इस सतर पर पपरर दपरप नकयव गयव करनण कक सतयतप अरवप असतयतप पर करई भक नरपपणक नकयव जपनव कप न तर पयपरप कपरण हह और न नवचपरण सव पसवर इस समबनध मम अनभयपकगण पपरकगण रपकव श कप मपर आनद कक करई अजधससरनत उतपन हरतक हह। / जहपन तक ननगरपनककतपरगण कव नवदपन अजधवकप दपरप यह तकर

22. नक अवर नयपयपलय कव पशनगत आदवश मम वपद सनखयप तरप वपदक अरवप पनतवपदक कर गलत रप सव दनशरत नकयप गयप हह परनतप उक तकर जलनपककय तपनर कव समबनध मम हह और मपत इस आधपर पर अवर नयपयपलय कप आदवश ननरसत नकयव जपनव यरगय नहह हह। इसकव अलपवप ननगरपनक पपररनप पत मम नकयव गयव तथयपतमक करन अनतररक रप सव नकयव गयव हह परनतप उक तथयपतमक करन पपररनप पत अनतगरत धपरप-195 दन०प०सन० मम नहह कहव गयव हह। अतत नवदपन अवर नयपयपलय दपरप मपमलव कव समसत तथय एवन पररससरनतयण तरप पतपवलक पर उपलबध नवशलवषणरपरपनत जर पशनगत आदवश पपररत नकयप गयप हह उसमम करई नवजधक अननयनमततप, वर कप आदवश नवजधपसणर व औनचतयपसणर हह जजसमम और खपररज नकयव

23. अनभलवखकय सपकय कव तपनर अरवप कवतपजधकपर कप अभपव नहह पपयप जपतप हह। नवदपन मजजसरट हसतकवप कक करई आवशयकतप नहह हह। पररणपमतत नयपयपलय कक रपय मम ननगरपनक आधपरहकन हह, जपनव यरगय हह। आदवश ननगरपनक सनखयप 198/23 शकमतक शककलप आनद बनपम उतर पदवश रपजय आनद ननरसत कक जपतक हह। आदवश कक पमपनणत पनत कव सपर नवचपरण नयपयपलय कक पतपवलक अनवलमब नवचपरण नयपयपलय कर भवजक जपय। ननगरपनक पतपवलक ननयमपनपसपर दपजखल दफतर हर।"

7. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present revision has been filed.

8. Sri J.P.Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that trial court as also the Revisional Court erred in law and fact both in passing the impugned order(s) dated 20.09.2023 and 01.07.2025. In support of his case he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Versus Jasbir Singh reported in (2020) 12 SCC 96.

9. Learned A.G.A. Sri S.P. Tiwari, supported the order(s) in issue. He submits that a conjoint reading of the contents of application dated 02.08.2021 preferred by the applicant nos. 1 to 3 and opposite party no.3 under Section 195 Cr.P.C.would indicate that the order is justified. He submits that case of the present applicants is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah Versus Meenakshi Marwah reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370. The paragraph of the same, referred, is extracted hereinunder:- "23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded."

10. On the aforesaid it would be apt to indicate the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 10.09.2024, passed in the case of Arockiasamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Another;Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5805/2023. The relevant paras of the judgement are as under "3. The counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the High Court incorrectly noted that the civil litigation between the appellant(s) 16:36:20 IST Reason: and the respondents had not attained finality. In order to show the error in the High Court’s finding, the counsel refers to the judgment dated 09.04.2021 in the additional documents, under which, the learned Subordinate Judge, Satyamangalam had dismissed the OS No.21 of 2012 filed by M.M. Rangasamy. On the same date i.e., 09.04.2021, the same Court had allowed the O.S. No.154 of 2017 filed by A. Arokiasamy and Baby Arokiasamy.

4. With the above, the counsel for the appellant(s) argues that the High Court should not have allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash the criminal proceedings against respondents for inter alia filing forged documents in Court.

5. On the above, learned counsel for the State would support the SLP filed by the appellant(s) and submit that since forgery was alleged, the High Court should not have quashed the criminal proceeding.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that no doubt the concerned civil suits were disposed of on 09.04.2021 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Satyamangalam but the aggrieved party then preferred appeal and those are pending.

7. The above would indicate that the High Court proceeded on the wrong assumption that the civil litigation between the parties had not attained finality. That apart, in our considered opinion, the High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings by holding that there can be no FIR/private complaint for forgery of a document filed before Civil Court until the finality of the litigation. The High Court ignored the ratio of the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Another v. Meenakshi Marwah & Another reported in 2005 (4) SCC 370, wherein it has been held that there is no embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC to examine the criminal allegation of forgery of documents filed in Court, when such forgery is committed before its production in Court. The relevant extracts are reproduced herein: “25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate whereafter commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh [Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large. … “33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh [Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.” (Emphasis supplied)

8. In the present case, the allegation in the complaint is that the respondents had fraudulently obtained stamp paper and prepared an unregistered sale agreement. Thereafter, suit was filed by the respondents seeking certain reliefs and, in the suit, the forged document was filed. The allegations do not indicate that the documents were forged when the matter was sub-judice before the Civil Court. Accordingly, as per the ratio in Iqbal Singh (supra) the bar under Section 195(1) (b)(ii) of the CrPC is not attracted. Following the above, and noticing the apparent error in foundation of the impugned order of the High Court dated 06.10.2022, the same is set aside and quashed. The appeals are allowed. It is ordered accordingly.

9. Before parting, it is made clear that the present order is only in the context of the impugned order of the High Court dated 06.10.2022 and we have not pronounced on the merit of the pending case of either party."

11. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid as also the facts pleaded and material placed on record, and also the observations/findings given in the order(s) under challenge dated 20.09.2023 and 01.07.2025, this Court finds that the instant application is liable to be dismissed as it lacks merit, for the reasons it is the case of the revisionists that without disclosing correct facts the opposite party no.2, obtained the order dated 13.07.2021 from the Magistrate and also that charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed for the offence under Sections 420/467/438/471/504/506 IPC against the revisionists namely Smt. Shakila, Mohammad Ahmad, Mohammad Siraj, and opposite party no.3 Rakesh Kumar. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Jyoti/- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench