SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. versus BALBIR SINGH

SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. versus BALBIR SINGH

The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC is not attracted where the criminal court has already taken cognizance of the offence before the alleged forged document is produced in a civil court, thus the direction to proceed with the trial is correct.

Parties
Appellant: Surjit Singh and Ors.; Respondent: Balbir Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bar of Cognizance Under Section 195 Cr PC, Private Complaint for Forgery, Jurisdiction of Magistrate, Quashing of Complaint
Criminal Law Procedure Bar of Cognizance Under Section 195 Cr PC Private Complaint for Forgery Jurisdiction of Magistrate Quashing of Complaint

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surjit Singh and Ors.

Appellant

Balbir Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the criminal court is debarred from proceeding with the private complaint for offences under sections 468 and 471 IPC due to bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, when the document alleged to be forged was filed in civil court after the Magistrate had already taken cognizance.

Ratio Decidendi

The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC is not attracted where the criminal court has already taken cognizance of the offence before the alleged forged document is produced in a civil court, thus the direction to proceed with the trial is correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court's direction to Magistrate to proceed with the trial affirmed.
  • Magistrate at liberty to proceed with trial of criminal case.