CASE BRIEF: BANDEKAR BROS. (P) LTD. v. PRASAD VASSUDEV KENI

CASE NAME	Bandekar Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, (2020) 20 SCC 1
CITATION	(2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 626, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 707, AIR 2020 SC 4247
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha
PETITIONER	Bandekar Bros. Private Limited and Another
RESPONDENT	Prasad Vassudev Keni and Others
DECIDED ON	Decided on 2nd September, 2020

INTRODUCTION

On September 2, 2020, a criminal appeal was decided in this specific instance. The Criminal Procedure Code’s Section 190, as well as Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860—which deal with providing false testimony and creating false testimony, respectively, were addressed by the Supreme Court in this case. The application of procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, specifically Section 340, was the subject of this case. This clause regulates the filing of criminal charges for crimes like forgery and perjury that take place during legal proceedings. The case gave the Supreme Court a chance to define the intent and parameters of Section 340 as well as to describe the cautious process that courts must follow when deciding whether to file charges against individuals who fabricate evidence or falsify documents during legal procedures.

This ruling emphasizes the delicate balancing act between safeguarding the legal system’s integrity and avoiding the improper use of criminal prosecutions as a form of reprisal amongst parties involved in a legal dispute. The ruling also reaffirmed the court’s obligation to ensure that prosecutions under Section 340 are not brought out of the blue but only used when essential to protect the administration of justice. In order to protect the integrity of the legal system, the Court reiterated the need for a cautious, prudent approach when handling allegations of untruth within the judicial system by establishing guidelines for the application of Section 340.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Under Section 340, read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as Cr.P.C.), the complainant had originally filed two complaints. According to Sections 190 and 191 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as the IPC), the accused was charged of giving false testimony and creating false testimony in the complaint. The defendants are charged with making false entries in the financial records and forging debit notes. Following this, the complainant requested that these complaints be changed to private ones, citing the Iqbal case as support. The Judicial Magistrate converted the complaint and then issued proceedings under IPC Sections 191, 192, and 193. The Sessions Court granted the revision petition and determined that in addition to the restrictions outlined in Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C., the conditions outlined in Section 340 of the same law must also be adhered to in all cases. A writ petition was filed to contest this at the High Court, but it was denied.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether private complaints concerning the offenses listed in Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, which include providing false testimony and creating false testimony, maintainable when the offenses include court proceedings?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments from the Appellant

The learned counsel for the appellants persuasively argued that, since his clients were the victims of forgeries, they should not be left without recourse for the acts of forgeries committed before they are used as evidence in court. As a result, a private complaint would be maintainable in the factual circumstances described in the two criminal complaints previously mentioned. Thus, the court must balance two opposing extremes on a spectrum: the “yang” represents a victim’s right to voice his complaints and have the forgery charge tried by the court through a private complaint, and the “yin” represents a person’s protection from baseless criminal complaints.
To support their claim that the Appellants owed the Respondents certain amounts, the Respondents had prepared entirely false debit notes.
In order to make the case that the forged documents, books of accounts, etc., were all forged before they were admitted into evidence in the court proceedings, he largely relied on Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. As a result, the judgment was directly applicable, and a private complaint could be filed.
Additionally, he contended that the High Court erred in holding that the Appellants failed to submit a Section 482 petition expressing a grievance over the revelation of additional offenses in the complaints and that the Magistrate should have taken action on the same.
According to Section 460(e) of the CrPC, any irregularity that may be committed during the course of the proceedings can always be excused once a Magistrate issues a process under Section 190(1)(a) of the CrPC. Therefore, in his opinion, the complaints were appropriately filed as private complaints and should remain that way.

Arguments from the Respondent

The High Court erred when it concluded that the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (above) was solely related to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC and that the offenses disclosed in the complaints submitted in this matter would be covered by Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC.
The debit notes, which served as the sheet anchor for the Appellants’ case, cannot be deemed to have been forged in accordance with Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC because, even if they were made dishonestly or fraudulently, they still had to be made with the intention of leading someone to believe that they were made by someone they knew wasn’t the person who made them, which is untrue because the debit notes were made on the letterhead of the sole proprietorship and bore the proprietor’s writing and signatures.
In order to support a bleak case, the appellants’ counter-affidavit to the respondent’s revision applications was obviously an afterthought.
The Magistrate only issued a process under Sections 191 to 193 of the IPC after the complaint was converted into a private one, and the Appellants did not contest this decision.

JUDGMENT

The Court noted that it is hard to draw a conclusion from this case that the provisions of Section 195 CrPC would not apply to an offense under Section 195 IPC. Due to the Court’s focus on the suppression of material facts, following its declaration in paragraph 10, the Court stated in paragraph 12 that it was not inclined to look into the matter any further in light of the suppression of material facts and the filing of multiple petitions before the Court, which amounted to an abuse of the Court’s process. Even while it is true that the sequence in which a private complaint was converted and the subsequent process was issued may not have been correct, the two complaints in their original filing format may still be pursued. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have returned the parties to their original position prior to the complaints being turned into private ones after the Magistrate’s decision was overturned. In order to proceed with the two complaints in accordance with the procedures outlined in Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC, the Court restored them to their initial shape.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court mainly addressed the reach of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which controls the process for bringing charges for offenses related to providing false testimony or forging documents in court, in the case of M/S Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni. According to Section 340, the court where the claimed false evidence or forgery happened must first carry out a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether it would be more advantageous to pursue prosecution in the interests of justice before prosecuting such acts.

The Court stressed that applying Section 340 CrPC in ordinary cases should not be done so carelessly. By discouraging the use of false evidence and forgeries, the section seeks to protect the integrity of legal procedures without placing undue weight on the courts to pursue criminal charges for insignificant inconsistencies. According to the Court’s interpretation, “expedient in the interests of justice” necessitates a higher standard for filing charges, meaning that the court must be persuaded that the alleged misbehavior has substantially influenced the legal system. To activate this rule, a simple contradiction or difference in the evidence would not be enough.

In this instance, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 340 CrPC is a protection meant to preserve the integrity of legal proceedings rather than a means of engaging in pointless litigation. It is important to exercise caution while deciding whether to prosecute, primarily considering if the claimed forgery or lie has significantly affected the administration of justice. According to the Court’s interpretation, criminal prosecutions for perjury or forgery are only brought in relation to severe instances in which the integrity of the legal system is at risk rather than little disputes that civil remedies can settle. The decision gives lower courts using Section 340 a clear framework for their discretion.