A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The decision in M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni constitutes a definitive exposition on the scope and mandatory nature of Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in cases alleging false evidence and fabrication of evidence under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court was confronted with the recurring misuse of private complaints to bypass the statutory safeguards embedded in Section 195 CrPC, particularly where allegations relate to acts committed in or in relation to judicial proceedings. The Court undertook a meticulous doctrinal distinction between offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, clarifying that the latter applies exclusively to cases of forgery of documents while in custodia legis, whereas the former governs offences affecting the administration of justice itself.

The appellants’ attempt to convert proceedings initiated under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC into private complaints was held to be impermissible, as the foundational allegations squarely attracted Sections 191 and 192 IPC. The judgment reaffirms that allegations of fabricated evidence intended for use in judicial proceedings fall within the exclusive domain of the court concerned, thereby barring private prosecution. At the same time, the Court adopted a balanced approach by restoring the original complaints in their statutory form, ensuring that serious allegations of perjury are not extinguished merely due to procedural irregularities. The ruling reinforces institutional control over prosecutions for offences against public justice, thereby preserving the purity and integrity of judicial proceedings.

Keywords: Section 195 CrPC, Section 340 CrPC, False Evidence, Fabrication of Evidence, Custodia Legis, Private Complaint, Administration of Justice

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The controversy arose from a long-standing commercial relationship between the appellants and the respondent proprietary concern, which deteriorated into multiple civil suits concerning financial liabilities. During the pendency of these suits, the appellants alleged that the respondents had knowingly tendered false evidence and fabricated debit notes to mislead the civil court. These allegations were not confined to mere contractual disputes but were framed as offences directly impinging upon the administration of justice.

Consequently, the appellants invoked Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC by filing complaints before the Sessions Court, alleging commission of offences under Sections 191 and 192 IPC. These provisions criminalise false testimony and the fabrication of evidence intended to be used in judicial proceedings. The procedural choice was significant, as offences under these sections cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint by the court concerned.

However, during the proceedings before the Magistrate, the appellants sought to convert the statutory complaints into private complaints, relying upon the ratio of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah. This strategic shift was aimed at avoiding the procedural rigour mandated under Section 340 CrPC. The Magistrate permitted such conversion and issued process under Sections 191, 192, and 193 IPC.

The respondents challenged this conversion, contending that the statutory bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC could not be circumvented. The Sessions Court accepted this contention and quashed the complaints, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The appeals before the Supreme Court thus raised foundational questions regarding the demarcation between private prosecution and court-controlled prosecution for offences affecting public justice.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants and the respondent proprietary concern had engaged in commercial dealings relating to iron ore production and sale since 1990. Disputes regarding accounts and alleged outstanding liabilities led to the institution of four civil suits by the appellants and a counter-suit by the respondent, which was later withdrawn unconditionally.

During the pendency of these suits, the respondents filed written statements and counterclaims supported by debit notes and accounting entries. The appellants alleged that these documents were false and fabricated, created with the deliberate intention of being used as evidence in court to obtain an unjust advantage.

Based on these allegations, the appellants filed two criminal complaints dated 11.08.2009 under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC, asserting offences under Sections 191 and 192 IPC. The complaints were initially returned on jurisdictional grounds and later refiled before the Judicial Magistrate.

After recording preliminary evidence, the appellants filed an application seeking conversion of the complaints into private complaints, citing Iqbal Singh Marwah. The Magistrate allowed this request and issued process under Sections 191, 192, and 193 IPC.

The respondents filed revision applications, arguing that the offences alleged were squarely covered by Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, rendering private complaints legally incompetent. In response, the appellants, for the first time, asserted that offences of forgery under Sections 463 to 477-A IPC were also made out.

The Sessions Court rejected this belated plea, quashed the complaints, and distinguished Iqbal Singh Marwah as applicable only to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) cases. The High Court affirmed this view, leading to the present appeals.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether allegations attracting Sections 191 and 192 IPC can be prosecuted through a private complaint despite the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC?
ii. Whether the ratio of Iqbal Singh Marwah applies to offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC?
iii. Whether debit notes allegedly fabricated prior to their production in court constitute false documents under Section 464 IPC?
iv. Whether conversion of a complaint under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC into a private complaint is legally sustainable?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the respondents had fabricated debit notes prior to their production in court, thereby attracting forgery provisions under Chapter XVIII IPC. It was argued that such offences fall outside the ambit of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, making a private complaint maintainable.

Reliance was placed heavily on Iqbal Singh Marwah, contending that the statutory bar does not apply where forgery precedes judicial proceedings. It was further argued that procedural irregularities in issuing process could be cured under Sections 211, 216, and 460 CrPC.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents contended that the complaints, read as a whole, disclosed offences exclusively under Sections 191 and 192 IPC. The alleged debit notes were not false documents within the meaning of Section 464 IPC, as they were not made to impersonate another’s authority.

It was argued that the appellants’ belated invocation of forgery provisions was an afterthought designed to bypass Section 195 CrPC. The mandatory nature of Section 340 CrPC was emphasised.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of Section 195 CrPC, reiterating that it creates an absolute bar on cognizance unless its conditions are strictly satisfied. The Court clarified the doctrinal distinction between Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii), holding that offences under Sections 191–193 IPC fall exclusively under the former.

The Court rejected the appellants’ reliance on Iqbal Singh Marwah, holding that its ratio applies only to forgery of documents while in custodia legis under Section 195(1)(b)(ii). The alleged debit notes did not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 464 IPC, as they were not created to falsely attribute authorship.

However, the Court held that quashing the complaints entirely was erroneous. The original complaints under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC were legally maintainable and were ordered to be restored.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC is mandatory for offences under Sections 191 and 192 IPC, and such offences cannot be prosecuted through private complaints. The ratio of Iqbal Singh Marwah is confined to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC and does not extend to perjury-related offences.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that while victims of forgery should not be left remediless, procedural safeguards protecting the sanctity of judicial proceedings cannot be diluted to accommodate private vengeance.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Courts must strictly scrutinise the substance of allegations to determine applicability of Section 195 CrPC.
ii. Conversion of statutory complaints into private complaints should not be permitted where offences affect public justice.
iii. Forgery allegations must satisfy Section 464 IPC ingredients before bypassing Section 195 CrPC.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the institutional role of courts in prosecuting offences against public justice. It curbs procedural manipulation while ensuring that serious allegations of perjury are not extinguished due to technical lapses. The ruling strengthens doctrinal clarity on custodia legis and preserves the integrity of judicial proceedings.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i) Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, [2005] 2 SCR 708
ii) Babu Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1964] 4 SCR 957
iii) Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. State of Gujarat, [1971] Supp SCR 834
iv) Dr. S. Dutt v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1966] 1 SCR 493

b) Important Statutes Referred

i) Indian Penal Code, 1860
ii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973