ASHOK GULABRAO BONDRE versus VILAS MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS

ASHOK GULABRAO BONDRE versus VILAS MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS

Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. applies only where the offence concerning a document is committed after the document has been produced or given in evidence and is in custodia legis; where forgery is alleged to have occurred prior to production, the embargo under Section 195 does not apply and the court may take cognizance on the basis of a private complaint.

Parties
Appellant: Ashok Gulabrao Bondre; Respondents: Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh and Others (including Ramprasad Pancheshwar as Respondent No.2)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From the Judgment and Order Dated 18.02.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur in CRLA No. 3121 of 2009
Outcome
Impugned judgments and order of the Revisional Court and the High Court quashed and set aside; matter remitted to the JMFC, Ramtek for consideration of the complaint on its merits.
Legal Topics
Section 195 Cr.p.c., Section 340 Cr.p.c., Forgery (ipc Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 470, 471), Cognizance, Custodia Legis
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Evidence Section 195 Cr.p.c. Section 340 Cr.p.c. Forgery (ipc Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 470, 471) Cognizance Custodia Legis

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashok Gulabrao Bondre

Appellant

Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh and Others (including Ramprasad Pancheshwar as Respondent No.2)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From the Judgment and Order Dated 18.02.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur in CRLA No. 3121 of 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is attracted where the alleged forgery of documents occurred prior to their production or filing in evidence in court

Ratio Decidendi

Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. applies only where the offence concerning a document is committed after the document has been produced or given in evidence and is in custodia legis; where forgery is alleged to have occurred prior to production, the embargo under Section 195 does not apply and the court may take cognizance on the basis of a private complaint.

Court Disposition

Impugned judgments and order of the Revisional Court and the High Court quashed and set aside; matter remitted to the JMFC, Ramtek for consideration of the complaint on its merits.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court and the High Court quashed and set aside.
  • Matter remitted forthwith to the learned JMFC, Ramtek for considering the complaint of the appellant on its own merits.