Bengaluru: When forged or fabricated documents are used in a court of law, the aggrieved party will have the right to file a criminal complaint as regards such forgery and fabrication, according to the High Court of Karnataka.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj further noted that the court, before which forged document is produced, can also take action against such a person under CrPC Section 340 for perjury and both the prosecution by the private party under regular criminal law and the prosecution by the court would not amount to double jeopardy.
In the case at hand, Vasanthi, a resident of Gabadi village in Shivamogga’s Thirthahalli taluk, was before the high court challenging the proceedings initiated against her for forgery, cheating and other offences. The proceeding was initiated by a man named G D Umesh, alleging that Vasanthi had produced a forged document in the civil suit filed by her relating to a site.
The suit was filed in November 2015 and a criminal complaint for forgery was registered in December 2015. The trial court at Thirthahalli took cognisance in September 2017. It was argued on behalf of Vasanthi that as a private party, Umesh cannot register a criminal case and under CrPC section 195 (1)(b)(ii), it is for the court to register the criminal case. It was further submitted that Vasanthi had subsequently, in December 2019, had withdrawn the
suit.
Justice Govindaraj cited the Supreme Court judgment in Bandekar Brothers Private Limited. The top court had held that the distinction required to be drawn to invoke the bar under section 195 of the CrPC is that primarily the court is to be the aggrieved party requiring the court to initiate criminal proceedings and that if the aggrieved party is a third party private citizen then such citizen will have the right to file a complaint either in a police station or a private complaint before the court.
“The respondent (Umesh) against who said document is used can always complain about and seek for action being taken as regards a document which has been forged or fabricated. Merely because the suit was withdrawn would not take away the fact of forgery or use of forged documents against the respondent. This aspect would have to be dealt with by the trial court and the necessary finding to be given in relation thereto. The fact, however, remains that the suit was withdrawn nearly four years after the filing of the complaint. Thus, even for the said four years the petitioner continued to keep the complaint pending, despite having filed the above petition in the year 2017,” the court said.