Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr

FACTS OF THE CASE :

Appellants were the real brothers and respondents were the widow-wife and son of  Mukhtar Singh Marwah who died on June 3, 1993.

 Appellants filed to probate the will executed by his dead brother on 20 January 1993. But respondents filed the petition that the will was forged. Although appellant filed the original will on February 10, 1994 in the District Court, respondent allleged under sec. 340 of Cr.P.C. that the will set up by the appellants was forged. Respondents then filed against appellants and their mother under sec. 192, 193, 463, 464, 465,467,469,471,499 and 500 of I.P.C. in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate , New Delhi on same grounds of will being forged stating that he was educated, still will had thumb impression of him.

But the complaint was dismissed as bar of the complaint came under sec. 195 (1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C., so the respondents filed a criminal revision before the session Judge against the order of the Magistrate who allowed the revision petition by saying the bar would not be included under the aforesaid sec. of Cr.P.C. as forgery was committed before it was produced in the court.

But this decision was challenged by the appellants under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. before Delhi High Court but it was dismissed. So, they finally preferred the present appeal in the court.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS :

It was contended by the appellants that sec. 195 of Cr.P.C. created a bar for taking any cognizance under their complaint, so respondents ‘s revision petition should be cancelled and their appeal should be allowed.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT :

Respondent’s side contended just the opposite view of the appellants in the contention regarding the same sec.195(1)(B)(ii) of Cr.P.C. that it would be applied against the accused and they are alleged to get punishment under this provision for committing the forgery in the documents.

RATIO DECIDENDI :

The constitution bench of this case upheld the Sachida Nand Singh Case by saying that it’s a correct view and has been correctly decided and decided with the same judgment by majority.

JUDGMENT :

The Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court has considered the material on record and concluded that no prima facie is made against the Accused for the alleged fact that he had committed any forgery. Revisional Court by taking in consideration of the report referred by the Magistrate and submissions of appellants have dismissed the revision on terms of merits.

High Court also concluded that no evidence was present on record that the letter was prepared by the respondent and held there was no illegality in the order of the revision court. 

It was held finally that sec. 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the present case and there was no sufficient material to take any cognizance against the accused. 

CONCLUSION

This case has provided to the court the scope of taking cognizance under sec. 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. and it’s provisions under what this section would be applicable to any case and would be held as legal enough to be the cause for giving punishment to the accused of the case. It can also be concluded that police can’t investigate the matter in view of the aforesaid section. So, in this particular case,  Lack of evidence was the reason for the acquitting of the accused as there was no proof to find illegality or infirmity done by them.

written by Chanchal Garg intern under legal vidhiya

Admin