Complaint Filed in Violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Quashed; Costs Imposed for Frivolous Litigation: Gujarat High Court

Only the court where the alleged forged document is produced can take cognizance of the related offence. Filing a complaint before another court is contrary to law and constitutes an abuse of the judicial process - Gujarat High Court, while allowing a criminal miscellaneous application, quashed proceedings initiated under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Justice Devan M. Desai held that the complaint filed by the original complainant was an abuse of the legal process as it was lodged before a magistrate who lacked jurisdiction under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

The Court not only quashed the proceedings but also imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the complainant for wasting the court's time with a frivolous and malicious complaint. The amount is to be deposited in the District Library of Jamnagar District Court.

"The intent of Section 195 is clear: only the court where the alleged offence occurs can take cognizance of the matter."

The High Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. unequivocally mandate that a complaint alleging offences related to documents produced in court must be filed in the same court where the documents were used. In this case, the document in question was produced in Regular Civil Suit No. 427/1999 before the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamnagar, yet the complaint was filed before a magistrate who lacked jurisdiction.

High Court observed: "Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. explicitly provides that the cognizance of the offence can only be taken by the court where the document in question was produced or relied upon. Any other court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such allegations."

The Court held that the learned Magistrate erred in law by issuing summons and taking cognizance of the complaint, as the proper procedure under Section 340 Cr.P.C.—which requires the concerned court to make a preliminary inquiry—had not been followed.

"Filing a complaint six years after the dismissal of a civil appeal, without any explanation for the delay, indicates malafide intent to harass the applicant."

The Court found that the complaint was filed six years after the related appeal was dismissed in 2004, without any explanation for the delay. Justice Desai noted:

“The delay in filing the complaint, coupled with the lack of credible allegations, clearly shows that the proceedings were initiated maliciously to settle personal scores and harass the applicant.”

Citing the landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings must be quashed when they are manifestly attended with malafide intent or amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Justice Desai invoked the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stating: “This Court has the inherent power to prevent the abuse of judicial process and secure the ends of justice. The continuation of criminal prosecution in this case would amount to an empty formality, as no prima facie case has been made out against the applicant.”

The Court further observed: “The allegations in the complaint, even if taken at face value, do not constitute the offences alleged, and the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak. Continuing such proceedings would be a sheer waste of judicial resources.”

Taking note of the complainant’s attempt to misuse the judicial system, the High Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the complainant. Justice Desai stated:

“The original complainant has wasted the court’s valuable time by filing a frivolous and malicious complaint. Costs are imposed to deter such conduct and prevent misuse of judicial forums.”

The Court directed the complainant to deposit the costs with the District Library of Jamnagar District Court within 15 days.

Jurisdiction Under Section 195 Cr.P.C.: The court where the alleged forged document was produced holds exclusive jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding such offences.
Delay Without Explanation: Filing a criminal complaint after an inordinate delay, without justification, reflects malafide intent.
Inherent Powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The High Court can quash proceedings when continuing them would amount to an abuse of process or would be futile.
Costs for Frivolous Complaints: Filing baseless complaints with malicious intent warrants imposition of costs to deter misuse of the judicial process.
The High Court quashed the complaint and all consequential proceedings in Criminal Inquiry No. 59 of 2010, holding them to be an abuse of process and violative of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The judgment serves as a stern warning against the misuse of judicial processes and reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in criminal matters.

Date of Decision: December 5, 2024