Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   176           OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1962 of 2011)

C.P. Subhash …Appellant

Versus

Inspector of Police Chennai & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated  

15th February,  2011 passed by  the  High  Court  of  Madras  

whereby  Criminal  O.P.  No.15917  of  2010  filed  by  

respondents  2,  3  and  4  has  been  allowed,  FIR  No.41/10  

dated  25th March,  2010  registered  in  Police  Station  

Tambaram for offences punishable under Sections 468 and  

1

Page 2

471  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  and  the  ongoing  

investigation into the said FIR quashed.

3. The complainant-appellant in this appeal is the General  

Manager of SNP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. while respondents 2, 3  

and  4  were  during  the  relevant  period  working  with  M/s  

Gorden  Woodroff  Limited  (for  short  ‘GWL’)  as  legal  

advisers/Senior Managers.  GWL has, it appears, filed O.S.  

No.169  of  2008  before  the  District  Court,  Chengalpattu  

seeking a decree for declaration of its title qua 11.75 acres  

of land situated at Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram in  

the State of Tamil Nadu. In support of its claim of ownership  

over the suit property GWL appears to be placing reliance  

upon two sale deeds one dated 10th March, 1922 (document  

No.1551  of  1922)  and  the  other  dated  27th June,  1922  

(document No.1575 of 1922).  SNP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. who  

claims  to  be  in  actual  physical  possession  of  the  suit  

property in the meantime appears to have approached the  

Sub-Registrar’s office at Saidapet to verify the genuineness  

of  the  two  sale  deeds  relied  upon  by  GWL.  Verification  

revealed that both the sale deeds in question pertained to  

2

Page 3

transactions  between  some  private  parties  and  had  no  

connection  whatsoever  with  GWL.  The  Sub-Registrar  also  

informed  the  complainant  that  there  was  no  transaction  

during  the  year  1922  in  respect  of  the  subject  lands  at  

Jameen Pallavaram.   

4. It was on the basis of the above information that the  

complainant  filed  a  complaint  against  the  respondents  

alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections  

468 and 471 of the IPC. Crime No.41/10 was accordingly  

registered in the Central Crime Branch, Chennai Suburban,  

St. Thomas Mount for the said offences against respondents  

2, 3 and 4.  Aggrieved, the respondents filed Criminal O.P.  

No.15917  of  2010  for  quashing  of  the  FIR  as  also  

investigation  in  connection  therewith  which  petition  was  

heard and allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court of  

Madras  by  an  order  dated  15th February,  2011  quashing  

registration of the case as also the proceedings based on the  

same. The High Court called in aid two precise reasons for  

doing so.  Firstly,  the High Court held that the allegations  

made in the complaint even if accepted in their entirety did  

3

Page 4

not  prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case  

against  the respondents  herein.  Secondly,  the High Court  

held that no Court could,  in view of the bar contained in  

Section 195 Cr.P.C., take cognizance of offences in question  

except on a complaint in writing made by the court or the  

public  servant  concerned.  The  present  appeal  assails  the  

correctness  of  the  said  order  passed,  as  already  noticed  

above.

5. Appearing  for  the  appellant,  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  

learned  senior  counsel,  argued  that  the  High  Court  had  

fallen  in  a  palpable  error  in  interfering  with  the  ongoing  

investigation. The complaint filed by the appellant, argued  

the learned counsel,  made specific  allegations against the  

respondents  which  could  not  be  brushed  aside  without  a  

proper verification of the correctness thereof in the course of  

investigation.  In  support  of  his  submission  he  placed  

reliance  upon  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  State  of  

Karnataka  and  Anr.  v.  Pastor  P.Raju  (2006)  6  SCC  

728.  He urged that the High Court could not interfere with  

an  ongoing  investigation  except  under  compelling  

4

Page 5

circumstances or where the complaint did not make out any  

case even if the allegations made therein were taken at their  

face value.  He further contended that the High Court was in  

error in relying upon Section 195 of Cr.P.C. while quashing  

the investigation. Section 195, argued Mr. Venugopal, was  

applicable to cases in which the alleged fabrication of the  

document  had  taken  place  while  the  same  was  in  the  

custody of the court. That was not the position in the case at  

hand. Reliance in support of that contention was placed by  

Mr.  Venugopal  upon a Constitution Bench decision  of  this  

Court  in  the case of  Iqbal  Singh Marwah and Anr.  v.   

Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370.  

6. Per contra, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel  

appearing for the respondents 2, 3 and 4 argued that while  

the complaint and the registration of the case was not hit by  

the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. in the light of  

the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court referred  

to above, yet keeping in view the fact that the question of  

validity and genuineness of the sale deeds relied upon by  

GWL was the subject matter of a pending civil suit it would  

5

Page 6

be  an  unnecessary  and  avoidable  harassment  for  the  

respondents if the investigation is allowed to proceed even  

before  the  Civil  Court  records  a  finding  regarding  the  

genuineness of the sale deeds.  

7. The  legal  position  regarding  the  exercise  of  powers  

under  Section  482  Cr.P.C.  or  under  Article  226  of  the  

Constitution of India by the High Court in relation to pending  

criminal  proceedings  including  FIRs  under  investigation  is  

fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court.  

Suffice it to say that in cases where the complaint lodged by  

the  complainant  whether  before  a  Court  or  before  the  

jurisdictional police station makes out the commission of an  

offence,  the High Court  would  not  in  the ordinary  course  

invoke its powers to quash such proceedings except in rare  

and compelling circumstances enumerated in the decision of  

this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v Ch. Bhajan Lal   

and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Reference may also  

be made to the decision of this Court in  Rajesh Bajaj v.  

State, NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259 where this Court  

observed:

6

Page 7

“...If factual foundation for the offence has been laid   down in the complaint the Court should not hasten   to  quash  criminal  proceedings  during  investigation   stage  merely  on  the  premise  that  one  or  two   ingredients  have not  been stated with  details.  For   quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in   extremely  rare  cases)  the  information  in  the   complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts   which are absolutely necessary for making out the   offence.”

8. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State  

of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta (2004) 1  

SCC 691 where this Court said:

“...The powers possessed by the High Court under   Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very   plenitude of the power requires great caution in its   exercise.  Court  must  be  careful  to  see  that  its   decision in exercise of this power is based on sound  principles.  The  inherent  power  should  not  be  exercised  to  stifle  a  legitimate  prosecution.  High   Court  being  the  highest  Court  of  a  State  should   normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in   a  case  where  the  entire  facts  are  incomplete  and  hazy,  more  so  when  the  evidence  has  not  been   collected  and  produced  before  the  Court  and  the   issues  involved,  whether  factual  or  legal,  are  of   magnitude  and  cannot  be  seen  in  their  true   perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no  hard  and fast  rule  can be laid  down in  regard to   cases  in  which  the  High  Court  will  exercise  its   extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding   at any stage. It would not be proper for the High   Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the   light  of  all  probabilities  in  order  to  determine   whether  a conviction would be sustainable and on  such  premises,  arrive  at  a  conclusion  that  the   proceedings  are  to  be  quashed.  It  would  be   erroneous  to  assess  the  material  before  it  and  conclude  that  the  complaint  cannot  be  proceeded   with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise  of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is   

7

Page 8

called for only in a case where the complaint does   not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or   oppressive.  If  the  allegations  set  out  in  the   complaint  do  not  constitute  the  offence  of  which  cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is   open  to  the  High  Court  to  quash  the  same  in   exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of   the Code…”

9. Decisions of this Court in V.Y. Jose and Anr. v. State  

of Gujarat and Anr. (2009) 3 SCC 78 and Harshendra  

Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley etc. (2011) 3 SCC 351  

reiterate the above legal position.

10. Coming to the case at hand it cannot be said that the  

allegations  made  in  the  complaint  do  not  constitute  any  

offence  or  that  the  same  do  not  prima  facie allege  the  

complicity of the persons accused of committing the same.  

The complaint filed by the appellant sets out the relevant  

facts and alleges that the documents have been forged and  

fabricated only to be used as genuine to make a fraudulent  

and illegal claim over the land owned by complainant. The  

following  passage  from  the  complaint  is  relevant  in  this  

regard:

“…..Thus  evidently  these  two  sale  deeds  being  produced by GWL i.e. 1551/1922 dated: 10th March  1922  and  1575/1922  dated  27th June  1922  are  

8

Page 9

forged  and  fabricated  and  after  making  the  false   documents  they  were  used  as  genuine  to  make   fraudulent and illegal  claim over our lands and go   grab them.  The representatives of GWL Properties   with dishonest motive of grabbing our lands having   indulged  in  committing  forgery  and  fabrication  of   documents and with the aid of the forged documents   are constantly attempting to criminally trespass into  our  lawful  possessed  lands  and  have  been  threatening  and  intimidating  the  staffs  of  our   company in an illegal manner endangering life and  damaging  the  land.   The  representatives  of  GWL  properties also have been making false statements   to  the  Government  Revenue  Authorities  by  producing  these  forged  and  fabricated  documents   with dishonest intention to enter their name in the  Government  Records.   The  present  Director-in- charge and responsible  for  the affairs  of  the GWL  Properties Limited is Mrs. V.M. Chhabria and all the   above mentioned acts  and commission of  offences   have  been  committed  with  the  knowledge  of  the  Directors of GWL Properties Ltd., and connivance for   which they are liable.  Mr. A.V.L. Ramprasad Varma  representing  M/s  GWL  Properties  Limited  has  registered  a  civil  suit  in  the  District  Court,   Chengalpet using the forged documents.  Mr. Satish,   Manager  (Legal),  Mr.  Shanmuga  Sundram,  Senior   Manager,  (Administration),  have  assisted  in   fabricating the forged documents and used the same  to  get  patta  from  Tahsildar,  Tambaram,  thus   cheating the Govt. Officials.  Hence we request you   to register the complaint and to investigate and take   action  in  accordance  with  law as  against  the  said   company M/s GWL Property Limited represented by  Mr.  Satish,  Manager  (Legal)  Mr.  Shanmudga  Sundaram, Senior Manager (Administration), A.V.L.   Ramprasad Varma, Directors,  and their  accomplice   who have connived and indulged in fabricating and  forging  documents  for  the  purpose  of  illegally   grabbing  our  lands  and  for  all  other  offences   committed by them.”             

11. Equally untenable is the view taken by the High Court  

that  the  bar  contained  in  Section  195(1)(b)(ii)  could  be  

9

Page 10

attracted to the case at hand. In  Iqbal Singh Marwah’s  

case  (supra)  a  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  had  

authoritatively  declared  that  Section  195(1)(b)(ii)  Cr.P.C.  

was  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  

any court  and during the time the same was in  custodia  

legis. This Court while taking that view approved the ratio of  

an  earlier  decision  in  Sachida  Nand  Singh  & Anr.   v.   

State of Bihar & Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 493 where this Court  

held:

  “12.  It  would  be  a  strained  thinking  that  any  offence involving forgery of a document if committed  far outside the precincts of the Court and long before   its production in the Court, could also be treated as   one  affecting  administration  of  justice  merely   because  that  document  later  reached  the  court   records.

xx  xx  xx  xx

23. The sequitur of the above discussion is that the   bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii)  of the Code is   not  applicable  to  a  case  where  forgery  of  the  document was committed before the document was  produced in a court.”

12. Mr.  Venugopal  was,  therefore,  correct  in  contending  

that  the  bar  contained  in  Section  195  against  taking  of  

10

Page 11

cognizance was not attracted to the case at hand as the sale  

deeds relied upon by GWL for claiming title to the property  

in question had not been forged while they were in custodia  

legis.  

13. In the light of the above, the High Court was wrong in  

quashing the FIR on the ground that the allegations did not  

constitute an offence even when the same were taken to be  

true in their entirety. It was also, in our view, wrong for the  

High  Court  to  hold  that  the  respondents  were  not  the  

makers of  the documents or that the filing of  a civil  suit  

based on the same would not constitute an offence. Whether  

or not the respondents had forged the documents and if so  

what  offence  was  committed  by  the  respondents  was  a  

matter  for  investigation  which  could  not  be  prejudged  or  

quashed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under  

Section  482  of  Cr.P.C.  or  under  Article  226  of  the  

Constitution of India.         

14. In  the  result  this  appeal  succeeds  and  is  hereby  

allowed.  The judgment and order dated 15th February, 2011  

passed  by  the  High  Court  is  set  aside  and Criminal  O.P.  

11

Page 12

No.15917 of 2010 filed by the respondents dismissed.  We  

make it clear that neither the investigating agency nor the  

Court before whom the matter may eventually come up for  

trial and hearing upon conclusion of the investigation shall  

be  influenced  by  any  observation  made  by  this  Court  

regarding the merit of the case.         

………………….……….…..…J.         (T.S. Thakur)

     ……………….…………..…..…J.              (Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi January 23, 2013        

12