# Vishwanath Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 873
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh - I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishwanath-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51863
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3) & 195
- Against rejection of application for
registering Criminal Case - Perusal of
impugned order reveals that Trial Court
rejected application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
on ground that revisionist sought
registration of FIR against opposite
parties Nos. 2 and 3 for fraud and
forgery,
alleging
that
despite
cancellation of disputed Will by Civil
Judge (Senior Division) they filed false
affidavit
and

forged
will
before
Tehsildar, Sadar and got their names
mutated
in
revenue
records
-
In
impugned order, Trial Court held that
registration of FIR for filing forged
documents
in
Court
proceedings
is
barred
u/s
195(1)(b)(i)
Cr.P.C.,
observing that for such offences, only
complaint by concerned Court can be
instituted,
in
whose
judicial
proceedings, false affidavit or forged
documents have been filed, hence, no
direction for registration of FIR could be
passed - Perusal of application u/s
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
reveals
that
alleged
forgery in affidavit and will deed was
prepared outside Court, and forged
documents were later filed in judicial
proceedings in a case pending in Court
- Hence, bar against taking cognizance
of criminal case u/s 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.
is not attracted in instant case - In view
of law laid down by Apex Court in
Sachida Nand Singh (infra), Magistrate
erred in holding that Section 195(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. bars registration of FIR even
where alleged forgery committed outside
Court
and

forged
document
subsequently filed in judicial proceedings
- Magistrate neither assigned any other
reason for rejecting application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. nor considered contention
regarding registration of criminal case for
alleged forged affidavit and false Will -
Thus, impugned order set aside. (Para 8,
9, 11, 13, 14)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
873
which is approximately 25 % of the next
monthly
income
of
Rs.43,020/-,
as
maintenance allowance.

23. Thus, opposite party No.2 shall be
bound to provide maintenance allowance of
Rs.10,000/-
per
month
to
his
wife
(revisionist) from the date of application.
The arrears of maintenance allowance shall
be paid by the opposite party No.2 in four
equal instalments within a period of four
months. The monthly interim maintenance
shall be paid regularly till 7th day of each
month.

24. The present criminal revision is
allowed in terms of above mentioned
conditions.

25. The copy of the order be sent to
the trial Court concerned for necessary
compliance, forthwith.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 873
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH - I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2023

Vishwanath ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ganesh Kumar

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Alok Singh, G.A., Sri Phool Chandra
Singh, Ms. Sumitra Singh

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3) & 195
- Against rejection of application for
registering Criminal Case - Perusal of
impugned order reveals that Trial Court
rejected application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
on ground that revisionist sought
registration of FIR against opposite
parties Nos. 2 and 3 for fraud and
forgery,
alleging
that
despite
cancellation of disputed Will by Civil
Judge (Senior Division) they filed false
affidavit
and

forged
will
before
Tehsildar, Sadar and got their names
mutated
in
revenue
records
-
In
impugned order, Trial Court held that
registration of FIR for filing forged
documents
in
Court
proceedings
is
barred
u/s
195(1)(b)(i)
Cr.P.C.,
observing that for such offences, only
complaint by concerned Court can be
instituted,
in
whose
judicial
proceedings, false affidavit or forged
documents have been filed, hence, no
direction for registration of FIR could be
passed - Perusal of application u/s
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
reveals
that
alleged
forgery in affidavit and will deed was
prepared outside Court, and forged
documents were later filed in judicial
proceedings in a case pending in Court
- Hence, bar against taking cognizance
of criminal case u/s 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.
is not attracted in instant case - In view
of law laid down by Apex Court in
Sachida Nand Singh (infra), Magistrate
erred in holding that Section 195(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. bars registration of FIR even
where alleged forgery committed outside
Court
and

forged
document
subsequently filed in judicial proceedings
- Magistrate neither assigned any other
reason for rejecting application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. nor considered contention
regarding registration of criminal case for
alleged forged affidavit and false Will -
Thus, impugned order set aside. (Para 8,
9, 11, 13, 14)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vs
Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & anr.: (2007) 14 SCC
776
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. St. of Maharshtra Vs Sayed Mohammed
Masood & anr.: (2009) 8 SCC 787

3. Mohammed Ibrahim & ors. Vs St. of Bihar &
anr.: (2009) 8 SCC 751

4. Sachida Nand Singh Vs St. of Bihar: (1998) 2
SCC 493, (Paras 7 to 9, 13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh - I, J.)

This criminal revision has been filed
for challenging the impugned judgement
and order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the
Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC, Basti
in
Criminal
Misc.
Application
No.462/2012/2022
(Vishwanath
vs.
Shivnath), under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,
Police Station Kotwali, District Basti.

2. By the impugned order, 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.

3. Learned 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
revisionist had filed Civil Suit before the
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti, which
was registered as Suit No.202 of 1995. In
the
aforesaid
suit,
revisionist
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 deed
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 No.127
of 1995 for cancellation of the aforesaid
order dated 04.04.1995 passed in Original
Suit No.202 of 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 i.e. Revision No.23 of 1997 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 bearing Writ-C
No.189 of 1999 before this Hon'ble 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
4 All. Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
875
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.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has submitted that from the averments
made in the application under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. and affidavit filed in support
thereof, prima facie offence under Sections
420, 467, 478 I.P.C. was made out against
the opposite party No.2, but without
considering the facts and evidence given
therein, Magistrate concerned illegally
rejected the application of the revisionist
filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the
same is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 submitted that Digpal
(father of the revisionist and opposite party
No.2) was a Government Employee and
has four sons, namely, Hanuman, Balram,
Vishwanath (revisionist) and Shivnath
(opposite party No.2). All three sons except
Shivnath
got
good
Government
Service/Job, since opposite party No.2 was
looking after him after retirement of
Drigpal (father of the revisionist and
opposite
party
No.2),
who
executed
registered will dated 17.05.1994 in his
favour. The aforesaid will has not been
cancelled or set aside by any Court. By
filing the application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C., the revisionist wants to lodge FIR
in a matter which is purely in civil nature,
such act is not permissible under the law.

6. Learned counsel for the
opposite party Nos.2 and 3 has placed
reliance on the following judgements of the
Hon'ble Apex Court:-

(i). All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt.
Ltd. & Others vs. Dhanesh Badarmal
Jain & Another: (2007) 14 SCC 776.

(ii) State of Maharshtra vs.
Sayed Mohammed Masood & Another:
(2009) 8 SCC 787.

(iii) Mohammed Ibrahim And
Others vs. State of Bihar And Another:
(2009) 8 SCC 751.

7. Heard Sri Ganesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A.
for the State and Sri Phool Chandra Singh,
learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and
3.

8. From the perusal of the impugned
order, it is revealed that trial Court has
rejected the application of the revisionist
filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 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.

9. 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) Cr.P.C. 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
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
documents have been filed, therefore, for
the
alleged
offences
no
order
for
registration of FIR under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. could be passed. The provision
which bars registration of FIR for an
offence of forgery committed in a Court
proceedings is as follows:-

"195. Prosecution for contempt
of lawful authority of public servants,
for offences against public justice and
for offences relating to documents given
in evidence.---

(1)
No
Court
shall
take
cognizance -

(a)(i) of any offence punishable
under
sections
172
to
188
(both
inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860), or
 (ii) of any abetment of, or
attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy
to commit such offence, except on the
complaint in writing of the public
servant
concerned
or other
public
servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate;

(b)(i) of any offence punishable
under any of the following sections of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
namely, sections 193 to 196 (both
inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both
inclusive) and 228, when such offence is
alleged to have been committed in, or in
relation to, any proceeding in any Court,
or
 (ii) of any offence described in
section 463, or punishable under section
471, section 475 or section 476 of the
said Code, when such offence is alleged
to have been committed in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence
in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy
to commit, or attempt to commit, or the
abetment of, any offence specified in subclause (i) or sub-clause (ii),

except on the complaint in
writing of that Court or by such officer of
the Court as that Court may authorise in
writing in this behalf, or of some other
Court
to
which
that
Court
is
subordinate.] [Substituted by Act 2 of
2006, Section 3 for "except on the
complaint in writing of that Court, of of
some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate"

10. 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 Cr.P.C.

11. From the perusal of averments
made in the application under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C., 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 out side the
Court and 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) Cr.P.C.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held
in paragraph nos.7, 8, 9 and 13 of the
judgement in Sachida Nand Singh vs.
State of Bihar: (1998) 2 SCC 493,
condition necessary for application of the
bar
under
Section
195
(1)
(B)
Cr.P.C.,which is as follows :-
4 All. Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
877

7.Even if the clause is capable of
two interpretations we are inclined to
choose the narrower interpretation for
obvious reasons. Section 190 of the Code
empowers "any magistrate of the first
class" to take cognizance of "any offence"
upon receiving a complaint, or police
report or information or upon his own
knowledge. Section 195 restricts such
general powers of the magistrate, and the
general right of a person to move the
court with a complaint is to that extent
curtailed. It is a well-recognised canon of
interpretation that provision curbing the
general jurisdiction of the court must
normally
receive
strict
interpretation
unless the statute or the context requires
otherwise
(Abdul
Waheed
Khan
v.
Bhawani [AIR 1966 SC 1718 : (1966) 3
SCR 617] ).

8. That apart it is difficult to
interpret
Section
195(1)(b)(ii)
as
containing a bar against initiation of
prosecution proceedings merely because
the document concerned was produced
in a court albeit the act of forgery was
perpetrated prior to its production in the
Court. Any such construction is likely to
ensue unsavoury consequences. For
instance, if rank forgery of a valuable
document is detected and the forgerer is
sure that he would imminently be
embroiled in prosecution proceedings he
can simply get that document produced
in any long-drawn litigation which was
either instituted by himself or somebody
else who can be influenced by him and
thereby pre-empt the prosecution for the
entire long period of pendency of that
litigation. It is a settled proposition that
if the language of a legislation is
capable of more than one interpretation,
the one which is capable of causing
mischievous consequences should be
averted.
Quoting
from Gill v. Donald
Humberstone & Co. Ltd. [(1963) 1 WLR
929 : (1963) 3 All ER 1803] Maxwell has
stated in his treatise (Interpretation of
Statutes, 12th Edn., p. 105) that "if the
language is capable of more than one
interpretation we ought to discard the
more natural meaning if it leads to
unreasonable result and adopt that
interpretation
which
leads
to
a
reasonably
practicable
result".
The
clause which we are now considering
contains enough indication to show that
the more natural meaning is that which
leans in favour of a strict construction,
and hence the aforesaid observation is
eminently applicable here.

9. As Section 340(1) of the Code
has an interlink with Section 195(1)(b) it
is necessary to refer to that sub-section in
the present context. The said sub-section
reads as follows:

"340. When upon an application
made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any
Court is of opinion that it is expedient in
the interest of justice that an inquiry
should be made into any offence referred
to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 195, which appears to have been
committed
in or
in
relation
to a
proceeding in that Court or, as the case
may be, in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in that Court, such Court may,
after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it
thinks necessary,-

(a) record a finding to that
effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in
writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the
first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for
the appearance of the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is
non-bailable and the Court thinks it
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
necessary so to do, send the accused in
custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to
appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate."

13. The three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai
case [(1971) 2 SCC 376 : 1971 SCC (Cri)
548 : AIR 1971 SC 1935] has interpreted
the corresponding section in the old Code,
[Section 195(1)(c)] in almost the same
manner
as
indicated
above.
It
is
advantageous in this context to extract
clause (c) of Section 195(1) of the old
Code:

"195. (1)(c) No Court shall take
cognizance.-

of any offence described in
Section 463 or punishable under Section
471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the
same Code, when such offence is alleged
to have been committed by a party to any
proceeding in any Court in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence
in such proceeding, except on the
complaint in writing of such Court, or of
some other Court to which such Court is
subordinate." (emphasis supplied)

The
issue
involved
in Patel
Laljibhai Somabhai case [(1971) 2 SCC
376 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 548 : AIR 1971 SC
1935] related to the applicability of that
sub-section to a case where forged
document was produced in a suit by a
party
thereto,
and
subsequently
a
prosecution was launched against him for
offences under Sections 467 and 471 of
IPC through a private complaint. The
ratio of the decision therein is the
following: (SCC Headnote)

"The offences about which the
court alone is clothed with the right to
complain may, therefore, be appropriately
considered to be only those offences
committed by a party to a proceeding in
that court, the commission of which has a
reasonably
close
nexus
with
the
proceedings in that court so that it can
without embarking upon a completely
independent
and
fresh
inquiry,
satisfactorily
consider
by
reference
principally to its records the expediency of
prosecuting the delinquent party. It,
therefore, appears to be more appropriate
to
adopt
the
strict
construction
of
confirming the prohibition contained in
Section 195(1)(c) only to those cases in
which the offences specified therein were
committed by a party to the proceeding in
the character as such party."

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

14. Apart from this Section 195
(1) (b) Cr.P.C., 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 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has not
discussed or given any other reason for
rejecting the application filed under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. and also has not considered
the other point raised in the application for
registering a criminal case regarding
alleged forged affidavit and false will.

15. From the above discussion, I am
of the view that whiling passing the
4 All. Vijay Shankar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
879
impugned
order,
the
Magistrate
has
committed illegality and has not exercised
the
jurisdiction
vested
in
him,
in
accordance with law.

16. Accordingly, the present criminal
revision is allowed. The impugned order
dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), FTC, Basti in Criminal
Misc.
Application
No.462/2012/2022
(Vishwanath vs. Shivnath) is set aside.

17. The Magistrate concerned shall
pass a fresh order on the application of the
revisionist filed under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. after giving opportunity of hearing
to the revisionist/applicant.

18. However, it is hereby made clear
that while making aforesaid observations,
this Court is merely concerned with the
illegality of impugned order and no
observation or finding has been made on
merit of the case.

19. The Magistrate shall disposed of
the application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. without being influenced by any
observation made in this order except that
relating to non-applicability of Section
195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. to the facts of the
case.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 879
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 324 of 2023

Vijay Shankar Verma ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ravindra Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.,
Sri
Shesh
Narain
Mishra,
Sri
Sudhanshu Pratap Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 306 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 161, 319 - Against
rejection of Application for summoning
opposite party - Revisionist's sister died
due to dowry harassment, for which her
father lodged FIR against her husband,
mother-in-law, and opposite parties nos.2
to 4 - Investigating Officer illegally,
expunged names of opposite parties nos.2
to 4 and filed charge-sheet only against
husband and mother-in-law - During trial,
P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 deposed regarding
involvement of opposite parties nos.2 to 4
in commission of murder of revisionist's
sister - Consequently, application u/s 319
Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist's father, trial
court
rejected
-
Opposite
parties
contended they were named in FIR only
due to relation with deceased's husband,
no specific role assigned against them,
finding no evidence, Investigating Officer
rightly exonerated them - Held, trial court,
relied
on
St.ments,
of
independent
witnesses - P.W.1 (father) and P.W.2
(uncle)
of
deceased
were
not
eyewitnesses - P.W.-1 didn't visit place of
occurrence, visited hospital after incident,
where her daughter was undergoing
treatment for her burn injuries, died
thereafter - P.W.2 received information of
burning and death of deceased from P.W.1
- P.W.1 and P.W.2 had neither earlier
complained of harassment of deceased by
in-laws or opposite parties nos.2 - 4, nor
did they assign any specific role to them -
On these grounds, trial court rejected
application - Incident occurred over seven
years
after
marriage
of
deceased
-
St.ments recorded indicate that opposite
parties nos.2 - 4 were not present at place
of occurrence, only deceased's husband
and mother-in-law present - Witnesses
St.d that deceased, depressed over not
having a son, had quarrel with her