13 May 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The recent dismissal of a criminal appeal by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Parshottam Shantilal Chaddarwalaa v/s The State Of Gujarat & Another., sheds light on the nuanced application of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly concerning offenses related to court documents after a case has concluded. The case, which involved alleged tampering with court records post-withdrawal of a civil suit, reaffirms that not all offenses involving court documents automatically trigger the stringent requirements of Section 195 CrPC, especially when the integrity of the judicial process itself is not directly impacted at the time of the offense.

The Heart of the Matter: A Tale of Tampered Records

The appellant, in this case, faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy, stemming from allegations of manipulating records of a Special Civil Suit that he had initially withdrawn unconditionally. The crux of the prosecution's case was that after the suit's withdrawal and the transfer of its records to the District Court's record room, the appellant, in connivance with court employees, fabricated a bogus decree and replaced original documents. This fraudulent decree was then used to initiate an execution petition, allegedly to extort money from the defendant.

The appellant's primary defense, which was rejected by the lower courts and ultimately by the High Court, hinged on Section 195 CrPC. This section mandates that for certain offenses related to contempt of lawful authority of public servants or offenses against public justice, a court cannot take cognizance except on a written complaint by the concerned public servant or court. The appellant argued that since the alleged offenses involved court records, Section 195 CrPC was squarely applicable, and thus, the FIR lodged by the Incharge Registrar was invalid.

The High Court's Stance: Two Parts to the Offense

The High Court of Gujarat, in its 2009 judgment, meticulously divided the alleged offenses into two parts:

• Part 1: Tampering with records of the withdrawn civil suit. The High Court observed that once a suit is withdrawn, there is no longer a "proceeding" before the court. Therefore, tampering with documents after the suit's withdrawal, even if the documents were in the record room, would not fall under the purview of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC. Such offenses, the High Court reasoned, do not directly affect the administration of justice as the case is already concluded.
• Part 2: Production of the forged decree in execution proceedings. While acknowledging that this part involved a document produced in court, the High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah, held that the offense must be committed after the document is produced or given in evidence in court to directly affect the administration of justice. Since the forgery itself occurred prior to its production in the execution petition, it did not trigger Section 195 CrPC.

Supreme Court's Affirmation: Beyond "Custodia Legis"

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, concurred with the High Court's reasoning. It emphasized that the civil suit proceedings had concluded upon the unconditional withdrawal. The subsequent acts of preparing and replacing bogus documents in the court record occurred post-conclusion of the proceedings. Crucially, the court noted that the records were no longer in the "custody of the court before whom the civil suit was filed" but rather in the District Court's record office.

The Court reiterated key principles regarding Section 195 CrPC, particularly drawing from its recent judgment in M.R. Ajayan vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 INSC 881. These principles, highly relevant to the present case, include:

• Direct Bearing on Justice Administration: The offense must have a direct correlation with court proceedings, significantly affecting the administration of justice.
• Bar on Cognizance: Section 195 only creates a bar to cognizance in specific situations, requiring a court complaint.
• "Custodia Legis" Requirement: To attract the bar, the offense must have been committed when the document was truly in "custodia legis" (in the custody of the court concerned).
• Preventing Frivolous Litigation: The object of Section 195 is to curb frivolous litigation, not to shield offenders.

In essence, the Supreme Court highlighted that the mere fact that a document was once part of court records, or even that an offense involved court records, does not automatically invoke Section 195 CrPC. The critical factor is whether the offense directly impacts the administration of justice during an ongoing judicial proceeding or when the document is truly in custodia legis for the purpose of such a proceeding. The acts of tampering in this case, occurring after the suit's withdrawal and while the records were in the record room, were deemed not to meet this threshold.

Implications: A Clarifying Precedent

This judgment offers a crucial clarification on the scope of Section 195 CrPC, particularly concerning offenses related to court documents. It reinforces the idea that the bar under this section is not absolute and depends on the specific context of the offense and its direct impact on the judicial process. While the integrity of court records is paramount, this ruling suggests that not every act of manipulation, especially concerning records of concluded proceedings, will necessarily require a court complaint for cognizance to be taken. This distinction is vital in balancing the need to prevent frivolous litigation with the imperative to prosecute serious offenses.

Section 195., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Indian Penal Code, 1860