JUDGMENT
R.C. Jain, J.
1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR 429/03 under Sections 423/420/463/464/466/467/468/470/471/474/503/506/192/196/199/120/506/149/34 IPC, P.S. K.Gate and subsequent proceedings taken thereon.
2. The relevant facts are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and pursuant to the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the above numbered FIR was registered and investigation taken up and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet stands already filed which is pending trial before the court of competent jurisdiction. The basis of the registration of the case being the alleged forgery of a Will dated 30.10.1997 purportedly executed by late Shri Harbhagwan, father of respondent No. 2. Before the registration of the said FIR, respondent No. 2 had filed a probate case in the Probate Court for grant of probate in respect of another Will dated 9.9.1997 purportedly executed by her father late Shri Harbhagwan. In the said probate proceedings, one Raj Kumar set up the Will dated 30.10.1997 as the last Will and testament of the deceased. The investigation conducted by the police has found that the Will dated 30.10.1997 propounded by the petitioner was a forged Will as it was not signed by the deceased Harbhagwan and based on the same, a charge-sheet has been put up.
3. Counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto primarily on the ground that it was for the Probate Court which is seized of the matter i.e. the two Wills; one propounded by respondent No. 2, and another propounded by a certain Raj Kumar, which alone could come to conclusion or finding as to which of the two Wills was a genuine Will of the deceased or which was a forged Will and depending on that, that Court alone was competent to direct initiation of any criminal proceedings against the petitioner. As against this, Mr. Khadaria, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the FIR and the consequential proceedings taken thereon are not liable to be quashed more particularly so because even before the Will dated 30.10.1997 was produced by Mr. Raj Kumar in the Probate Court, an FIR had already been registered on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and investigation taken up. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Iqual Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. 2005 Crl.L.J.2161, which has morefully dealt with the above facets and implications of Sections 195, 340 and 341 Cr.P.C., holding as under:-
Section 195(1)(b)) Cr.P.C. would be 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 a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
Broadly, Section 195 Cr.P.C. deals with three distinct categories of offences which have been described in cls. (a), (b) (i) and (b) (ii) and they relate to (1) contempt of lawful authority of public servants, (2) offences against public justice, and (3) offences relating to documents given in evidence. Clause (a) deals with offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC which occur in Chap. X of the IPC and the heading of the Chapter is – ‘Of Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants’. These are offences which directly affect the functioning of or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant. Clause (b)(i) refers to offences in Chap. XI of IPC which is headed as -‘Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice’. The offences mentioned in this clause clearly relate to giving or fabricating false evidence or making a false declaration in any judicial proceeding or before a court of justice or before a public servant who is bound or authorized by law to receive such declaration and also to some other offences which have a direct co-relation with the proceedings in a Court of Justice (Sections 205 and 211 IPC). This being the scheme of two provisions or clauses of Section 195 viz., that the offence should be such which has direct bearing or affects the functioning or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice, the expression “when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court” occurring in Clause (b) (ii) should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not appear to be in tune with cls. (a) (i) and (b) (i) and consequently with the scheme of Section 195, Cr.P.C. This indicates that Clause (b)(ii) contemplates a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.
4. The legal position emerging from the above decision of the Supreme Court leaves no manner of doubt that the FIR registered on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 156(3) was not hit by the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. because firstly the purported forged Will dated 30.10.1997 was not the subject matter of any legal proceedings as on the date of registration of the FIR and it became the subject matter of the court proceedings later on when it was so produced by a certain Mr. Raj Kumar in the Probate Court.
5. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and that the investigation taken up on the FIR has been taken to its logical conclusion, and a charge-sheet stands already filed, this Court does not find any sufficient ground for quashing the said FIR and proceedings taken thereon. However, it will be open for the petitioner to take up such pleas and objections as may be available to him in law in the pending proceedings.
6. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order dated 31.5.2005 stands vacated.