LAW FOR ALL

Sec.195 (1)(b) of Cr. P.C. - Private complaint under sec.425,468 and 471 of I.P.C.- Trial court took cognizance - High court quashed the complaint basing on legal principle upheld in Gopalakrishna Menon and Anr. V D. Raja Reddy and Anr.- Apex court held that In the case at hand, as we find, the allegation in the complaint is that the respondents had forged the signature of the complainant and submitted to the Corporation seeking extension of the period of supply. Thereafter, seeking certain relief a suit was filed and in the suit the document was filed. There is no allegation that this document was forged when the matter was subjudice before the Civil Court. Thus, the dicta of the Constitution 1954 SCR 1144 Bench is squarely applicable. The High Court has clearly erred in relying on the principle stated in Gopalakrishna Menon's case (supra) which makes the impugned order wholly indefensible. We have already taken note of the submission of Mr. Rao that the High Court has not adverted to the factual score whether a case has been made out on the basis of the material brought on record. In the absence of any findings in that regard by the High Court, we do not intend to take up the burden on ourselves. That makes it obligatory on our part to set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to it for fresh consideration whether in the obtaining factual matrix the order of cognizance deserves to be lancinated.=CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2165 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7521 of 2012) George Bhaktan ...Appellant Versus Rabindra Lele & Ors. ...Respondents = 2014- Sept.Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41980