JUDGMENT Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, summoning the applicant in Criminal Sections 419, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code, and for terminating the proceedings, based on the complaint filed by the Opp. Party No. 2.
2. The complainant's allegation was that the applicant alongwith 4 accused in the case, falsely prepared and forged a Will in the name of his deceased father, depriving the complainant of his share of House No. 252.
3. Heard Sri B.S. Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant-accused, Sri M.A. Quadeer for the Opp. Party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The accused have raised objection of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code because they say that the impugned Will had been filed in the case between them and a tenant before the Prescribed Authority and the case in that regard could only proceed on the basis of a complaint by the Court. He has a Iso pleaded the bar of Section 210 Cr.P.C.
5. As regards the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code, the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sacchidanand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar 1998(3) A.C.C., 466 (S.C.), which acts as a complete bar. This is what the Supreme Court said:
That apart it is difficult to interprete 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 unsavory 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 some body else who can be influenced by him and thereby pre-empt the prosecution for the entire long period of pendency of that litigation
8. In para 12 of the judgment following observations have been made.
It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed for 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.
6. The Will in question was prepared out side the Court and not in relation to any document which was part of the record of the Court. The counsel for the applicant had no answer to this and kept mum. The bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) will not, therefore, be applicable.
7. As regards the bar of Section 210 of Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, the Section may be extracted below:
210 Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence:
(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on police report (hereinafter referred to as a Complaint Case), it is made to appear to Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report congnizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
8. It will appear that a first information report had been filed by the complainant but no investigation took place on basis of the first information report and no such document has been filed by the applicant, which may so indicate. The bar of Section 210 Cr.P.C. will not, therefore, be applicable.
9. It was argued by the counsel for the applicant that the compromise has been filed in the case against the tenant of House No. 252 before the Prescribed Authority in which allegedly forged Will was filed and the complainant was one of the parties to the compromise. Therefore, the offence of forgery of the Will does not subsist any more. The Mere filing of a compromise will not obliterate the offence of forgery. The complainant had not admitted in the compromise that the Will is genuine. The offence of forgery in respect of the Will cannot, therefore, be deemed to have become non-existent. Moreover, it is to be noticed that offence of forgery is not compoundable. This contention has, therefore, no substance.
10. The result is that the application fails and is accordingly dismissed.