The landmark judgment in Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. And Another v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. Etc. (2020 INSC 531) delivered by the Supreme Court of India on September 2, 2020, provides pivotal clarity on the application of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically distinguishing between offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii). This case delves into the procedural nuances surrounding the filing and conversion of criminal complaints related to false evidence and forgery within judicial proceedings, setting a significant precedent for future litigations.

The case revolves around two criminal complaints filed by the appellants against the respondents under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging offences related to false evidence and fabrication thereof. Initially lodged under Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC in the Court of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, the complaints faced procedural hurdles, leading to their conversion into private complaints by the Judicial Magistrate under contested circumstances.

The respondents challenged this conversion, asserting that the mandatory provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC had been bypassed. Lower courts upheld this contention, referencing the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370, which the appellants sought to extend beyond its original context.

Upon reaching the Supreme Court, a comprehensive analysis was undertaken, differentiating between offences that fall under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC—pertaining to false evidence and offences against public justice—and those under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, which specifically address offences related to documents presented in court filings.

The Supreme Court concluded that the present case squarely falls under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and that the prior judgments like Iqbal Singh Marwah do not extend to this categorization. Moreover, the allegations of forgery under Sections 463 and 464 IPC were not substantiated as the fundamental elements of forgery were absent. Consequently, the original complaints were reinstated, emphasizing adherence to procedural mandates under Section 195 and 340 CrPC.

The judgment extensively references pivotal cases that delineate the scope and applicability of Section 195 CrPC:

• Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370: Addressed the applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, emphasizing that it pertains strictly to offences committed in relation to documents presented in court.
• Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998) 2 SCC 493: Affirmed that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC does not apply to forgery offences committed prior to the introduction of documents in court.
• Daulat Ram v. State Of Punjab (1962) Supp (2) SCR 812: Established that Section 195 CrPC is a mandatory provision and cannot be circumvented.
• Babhann Singh v. Jagdish Singh (1966) 3 SCR 552: Clarified that offences under various sections of IPC fall distinctly under either Section 195(1)(b)(i) or (b)(ii) based on their relation to court proceedings.
• Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751: Held that manufacturing documents without intending to misrepresent authority does not constitute forgery under Section 464 IPC.
• Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh (1966) 3 SCR 552: Differentiated offences under Section 191/192 IPC from those under forgery sections, reinforcing procedural bars under Section 195 CrPC.

The Supreme Court's reasoning meticulously dissected the statutory provisions and the specific facts of the case:

• Distinction Between Sections: The Court underscored the difference between Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, which deals with offences like giving or fabricating false evidence affecting public justice, and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, which pertains to offences involving documents presented in court proceedings.
• Applicability of Precedents: It was emphasized that prior judgments like Iqbal Singh Marwah are confined to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC and cannot be extrapolated to Section 195(1)(b)(i) cases. The Court reiterated that each sub-section addresses distinct offences with unique procedural requirements.
• Evidentiary Requirements for Forgery: The Court examined the allegations of forgery, noting that the mere creation of debit notes does not satisfy the criteria under Sections 463 and 464 IPC. Specifically, the intention to misrepresent authority or fabricate circumstances essential for establishing forgery was lacking.
• Protection Against Frivolous Litigation: The judgment highlighted the balance between preventing misuse of legal provisions to initiate vexatious prosecutions and safeguarding the rights of genuine victims to seek redressal.
• Interpretation of "In Relation To": Judicial interpretations of "in relation to" were discussed, affirming that offences need not be directly within court premises but should have a nexus with court proceedings to attract Section 195 CrPC.

This judgment significantly impacts the legal landscape in several ways:

• Procedural Compliance: Reinforces the necessity for strict adherence to procedural mandates under Section 195 and 340 CrPC when dealing with offences related to false evidence and forgery in court proceedings.
• Clarification of Offence Categorization: Provides clear guidelines on categorizing offences under Section 195 CrPC, ensuring that litigants and legal practitioners can accurately identify the applicable sub-section based on the nature of the offence.
• Limitation on Private Complaints: Limits the ability to circumvent mandatory complaint mechanisms by categorically distinguishing between private complaints and those requiring court or public servant initiation.
• Precedential Value: Serves as a binding precedent for future cases, ensuring consistency in the interpretation and application of Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and (b)(ii) CrPC.
• Deterrence Against Misuse: Acts as a deterrent against attempts to manipulate legal provisions for delaying or derailing judicial proceedings through unwarranted complaints.

Section 195 CrPC

Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is designed to regulate offences that directly impact the administration of justice. It categorizes offences into three main types:

• Clause (a): Offences that constitute contempt of public servants.
• Clause (b)(i): Offences like giving or fabricating false evidence that hinder public justice.
• Clause (b)(ii): Offences related to documents produced or used in court proceedings.

Understanding the distinction between (b)(i) and (b)(ii) is crucial. While (b)(i) covers broader offences affecting judicial processes, (b)(ii) is more specific, dealing with the integrity of documents within court proceedings.

False Evidence vs. Forgery

The IPC differentiates between offences of false evidence and forgery:

• False Evidence (Sections 191 & 192 IPC): Involves making statements or entries with the intention of misleading judicial proceedings.
• Forgery (Sections 463 & 464 IPC): Pertains to the creation or alteration of documents with fraudulent intent, such as impersonating authority or manipulating records.

The Supreme Court clarified that these are distinct offences with separate legal ramifications and procedural requirements under CrPC.

The Supreme Court's judgment in Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. And Another v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. Etc. stands as a cornerstone in the interpretation of Section 195 CrPC. By meticulously distinguishing between different types of offences that impede the administration of justice, the Court has fortified the procedural safeguards against prosecutorial misconduct and frivolous litigation. Legal practitioners must now navigate these distinctions with precision, ensuring that complaints are lodged following the mandated procedures to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings. Ultimately, this judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the sanctity of legal processes while balancing the rights of aggrieved parties to seek legitimate redressal.