Delhi High Court – Orders
Ajit Singh vs Hardev Singh & Anr on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2865/2012
AJIT SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.
versus
HARDEV SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 01.05.2025
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731, seeks quashing of order dated 27th September, 2011
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02, Patiala House Courts, New
Delhi in Crl. Revision No. 11/11. By the said order, the Revisional Court
dismissed the challenge to the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order dated 23rd
January, 2010, passed in Complaint Case No. 353/1/09 titled Ajit Singh v.
Hardev Singh & Ors., whereby the Magistrate declined to summon the
accused and dismissed the complaint filed under Sections 465, 466, 467 read
with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.
2. The impugned complaint pertained to an alleged forgery of a joint
undertaking submitted before the Supreme Court of India in proceedings
arising from a long-standing tenancy dispute. The Magistrate declined to
1
“Cr.P.C.”
CRL.M.C. 2865/2012 Page 1 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 10:42:04
take cognizance, primarily in view of the statutory bar under Section
195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The Revisional Court concurred with this reasoning
and affirmed the Magistrate’s decision.
3. The factual background is as follows:
3.1 The dispute traces back to a tenancy litigation where both the
Petitioners as well as the Respondent were parties. This case reached the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7922/2003 and was decided vide final
judgment dated 19th September, 2003, whereby the Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal and directed the Appellants, including the present
Petitioner and Respondents, to vacate the premises within a period of three
months, subject to furnishing an undertaking that they alone occupied the
property. The relevant text of the reads as follows:
“In our view, there is no infirmity either in the impugned order or in
the order of Executing court. The appellants should have taken steps to see
that they Were resettled on some other surplus land. The Appellants not
having taken any steps, to safeguard their rights, for the last 30 years,
cannot claim that due to their own inaction, they should not be evicted.
Accordingly. this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
We, however, grant to the appellants three months, time to vacate
i.e. upto 31st December, 2003, provided that the appellants file in this Court,
within one week from today, the usual undertaking to vacate wherein they
Will also undertake that apart from them there is no other person on the
land.
We pass no orders on the impleadment Application. However, it will
be open to the power of Attorney holder to take possession of the land from
the Appellants, if in law he is entitled to do so.”
3.2 Pursuant to the said direction, joint undertakings were submitted on
behalf of the sons of late Sh. Sunder Singh, namely, Surjeet Singh, Hardev
Singh [the Petitioner and the Respondents]. Although the undertaking bore
the names of all three, the accompanying affidavit was executed only by
2
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 2865/2012 Page 2 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 10:42:04
Hardev Singh.
3.3 The Petitioner alleges that the undertaking filed before the Supreme
Court on 7th October, 2003 was forged insofar as it contained his purported
signature without his consent or knowledge. However, the Supreme Court
accepted the undertaking and granted time-bound protection from eviction.
3.4 Subsequently, the Petitioner moved an application before the Supreme
Court [I.A. Nos. 6-9/2006 in Civil Appeal No. 7922/2003] seeking action
against the Respondents for having forged the undertaking. The said
application was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 19th
October, 2006.
3.5. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a private complaint before the
Magistrate invoking Sections 465, 466, 467 read with Section 420 IPC,
alleging forgery of a judicial document. The Magistrate dismissed the
complaint, holding that such a prosecution was barred by Section
195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The Revisional Court affirmed this decision, giving
rise to the present challenge under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Courts below failed to
appreciate that the alleged act of forgery preceded the filing of the
undertaking in Court. It is submitted that the embargo under Section
195(1)(b)(ii) does not apply to such cases. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwaha v. Meenakshi
Marwaha3 where the Court held that prosecution for forgery committed
prior to the document being filed in Court is not barred by Section
195(1)(b)(ii). The relevant portion reads:
“25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar
3
(2005) 4 SCC 370CRL.M.C. 2865/2012 Page 3 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 10:42:04
created by the said provision would also operate where after commission
of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in court, is
capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh [(1998) 2
SCC 493: 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] after preparing a forged document or
committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding
instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or
through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said
proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the
instance of a private party or the police until the court, where the
document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation
may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may
be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental
to the interest of the society at large.
26. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the courts are normally
reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is
rarely adopted. It will not be fair and proper to give an interpretation
which leads to a situation where a person alleged to have committed an
offence of the type enumerated in clause (b)(ii) is either not placed for trial
on account of non-filing of a complaint or if a complaint is filed, the same
does not come to its logical end. Judging from such an angle will be in
consonance with the principle that an unworkable or impracticable result
should be avoided. In Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion (3rd
Edn.), para 313, the principle has been stated in the following manner:
“The court seeks to avoid a construction of an enactment that produces an
unworkable or impracticable result, since this is unlikely to have been
intended by Parliament. Sometimes, however, there are overriding reasons
for applying such a construction, for example, where it appears that
Parliament really intended it or the literal meaning is too strong.
xxx xxx xxx
33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that
Sachida Nand Singh [(1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] has been
correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section
195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC 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.”
5. Heard. The principal legal contention advanced by the Petitioner rests
on the authoritative pronouncement in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi
Marwah, wherein the Supreme Court held that the bar under Section
195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would apply only if the offence of forgery is
committed after the document is produced in or given in evidence before a
CRL.M.C. 2865/2012 Page 4 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 10:42:04
court, i.e., when it is in custodia legis. In contrast, if the forgery is alleged to
have occurred before the document entered the court’s record, a private
complaint is not barred. Relying on this interpretation, counsel for the
Petitioner submits that since the purported forgery in the present case took
place prior to the filing of the undertaking before the Supreme Court, the
embargo under Section 195 Cr.P.C. had no application, and both the
Magistrate and Revisional Court erred in declining to take cognizance of the
offence on that basis.
6. While the legal proposition in Iqbal Singh Marwah is well-settled
and correctly relied upon by the Petitioner, its application must be assessed
in light of the factual matrix of the present case. As noted earlier, the
Petitioner had already agitated the very same grievance before the Supreme
Court by filing I.A. Nos. 6-9/2006 in Civil Appeal No. 7922/2003, alleging
that the undertaking was forged. The Supreme Court, after considering the
matter, declined to take action on those allegations. The undertakings were
accepted and formed the basis for compliance with the Court’s directions.
The order of the Supreme Court has attained finality and was duly
implemented, leading to the eviction process being carried out accordingly.
7. In such circumstances, allowing the Petitioner to prosecute a private
complaint would amount to a collateral challenge to the very undertaking
that was accepted by the Supreme Court and implemented. It is well-settled
that a party cannot be permitted to bypass or re-litigate issues already
considered by the Apex Court, under the guise of a criminal prosecution4.
Permitting such a course would subvert the principle of finality and run
4
Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1570 of 2021,
judgment dated 12th March, 2024
CRL.M.C. 2865/2012 Page 5 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 10:42:04
contrary to the doctrine of judicial discipline.
8. The High Court, in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., is bound to ensure that criminal proceedings are not permitted
to degenerate into tools of harassment or to reopen settled disputes5. One of
the recognised categories warranting quashing of criminal proceedings is
where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the
commission of any cognizable offence or are manifestly attended with mala
fides.
9. In the present case, since the Apex court has considered and rejected
the Applicant’s plea of forgery, it would be wholly inappropriate to permit
the Trial court to revisit that issue through private prosecution. The bar may
not arise under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. strictly on jurisdictional
grounds, but the exercise of inherent powers must still be guided by the
broader ends of justice and judicial propriety.
10. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent findings
of the Magistrate and the Revisional Court. No case is made out for
interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 1, 2025
nk
5
Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626
CRL.M.C. 2865/2012 Page 6 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 10:42:04