High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-25Original Petition stands allowed.

P. Rangadasa Prabhu and others v. R. Venkateswara Shenoy and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(C).No.2147 OF 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date: 2019-10-25
Court Decision / Holding: Original Petition stands allowed. Exts. P11 and P12 orders and the related 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings are quashed, with a finding that no offence under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was established in the given facts. The lower court’s invocation of Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable in the circumstances, and the petitioners’ challenge to Exts. P11–P12 succeeds.
Final Disposition: Original Petition stands allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.RANGADASA PRABHU
P.S.JAYAPRAKASH PRABHU
R.BHASKAR SHENOI
S.SAIBABA PRABHU
V.SANTHARAM ADVOCATE
SISHOY P.S. ADVOCATE

Respondents

R. VENKATESWARA SHENOY
R. RAMESH KUMAR
SANDHYA RANI.A.R.
SREENIVASAN
GOWDA SARASWATHA SEVA SANGHAM (REGD.) represented by President SRI.N.K.PRABHAKARA NAICK

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri R. Lakshmi Narayan
• Smt. R. Ranjani
• Sri M. Ashok Kini

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.R.VINOD
• Smt. M.S.Letha

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears OP(C) No.2147 of 2018 filed under Section 25 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, challenging the order/judgment in OP(Society) No.946/2016 of the Sixth Additional District Court – Ernakulam. The petitioners (1–6 listed in the caption) sought removal of the existing Executive Committee of Gowda Saraswatha Seva Sangham and the election of a fresh governing body, along with allied reliefs. The respondents include R. Venkateswara Shenoy, R. Ramesh Kumar, Sandhya Rani AR, Sreenivasan, and Gowda Saraswatha Seva Sangham represented by its president. The petitioners’ affidavits and vakalath-related issues (Exts. P3–P6; Exts. P11–P12) led the court below to issue notices and summons to petitioners’ Advocates to testify about vakalath signatures. Petitioners argued that Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not applicable since no offence was admitted to have occurred in relation to any document produced in court, especially given the lack of forgery after document production. The Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah clarified the limits of 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The Kerala High Court held that, in the absence of any allegation of forgery after production, the lower court’s 340 proceedings were unjustified and quashed Exts. P11–P12, allowing the original petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, Section 25Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 340Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 195(1)(b)(ii)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Custodia legis doctrine
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah: Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. applies only to offences against a document after it has been produced in evidence; limits the invocation of Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the court has no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. since no offence was admitted to have occurred with respect to any document after its production in court; there is no forgery alleged post-production of vakalath; Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is applicable only when specified offences occur in relation to a document after it has been produced in custodia legis, as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah. Consequently, Exts. P11 and P12 directing an enquiry under 340 Cr.P.C. were unsustainable; the petitioners seek quashing of those orders and withdrawal of 340 proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the lack of signatures in the vakalath and related filings necessitated inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to ascertain the authenticity and prevent misuse. They relied on the vakalaths and subsequent proceedings initiated by Exts. P11–P12, arguing that the court properly exercised its powers under Cr.P.C. to probe alleged offences concerning documents produced in proceedings. They asserted the need for verification of authority to engage advocates and the safety of documentary records in the ongoing proceedings.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah	AIR 2005 SC 2119	Positive	Constitution Bench held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C would be attracted only when the offences enumerated have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced in evidence; this principle guided the present court’s view that no such offence occurred here.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. Rangadasa Prabhu and others v. R. Venkateswara Shenoy and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/3RD KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **OP(C).No.2147 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP (SOCIETY) NO.946/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 P.RANGADASA PRABHU AGED 70 YEARS, S/O R.PADMANABHA PRABHU, SREE RANGA NIVAS, TD WEST ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682035 2 P.S.JAYAPRAKASH PRABHU S/O.P.R.SRINIVASA PRABHU, 40/8799-C, SRINIVAS ENCLAVE, T.D.EAST ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 35. 3 R.BHASKAR SHENOI AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.R.RATNAKAR SHENOI, OMKAR, SREENIVASA MALLAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 035. 4 S.SAIBABA PRABHU AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.LATE SADANANDA PRABHU, RESIDING AT VIMAL HOUSE, T.D.ROAD, KOCHI - 682 035. 5 V.SANTHARAM ADVOCATE, SRILAKSHMI, 40/8709, FIRST LOOR, SREENIVASA MALLAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 035. 6 SISHOY P.S. ADVOCATE SRILAKSHMI, 40/8709, FIRST FLOOR, SREENIVASA MALLAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 035.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJANIE SRI.M.ASHOK KINI** **-2-** ## **OP(C).No.2147 OF 2018** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**R. VENKATESWARA SHENOY**| |---|---| ||**AGED 60 YEARS, S/O M.RENGA SHENOY, 39/231 B,**| ||**MONASTRY ROAD, KOCHI - 682011**| |**2**|**R.RAMESH KUMAR**| ||**AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.A.RAMACHANDRA SHENOY,**| ||**RAM MANDIR, ST.BENEDICT ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH,**| ||**KOCHI - 18.**| |**3**|**SANDHYA RANI.A.R.**| ||**W/O.R.RAMESH KUMAR, RAM MANDIR,**| ||**ST.BENEDICT ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH,**| ||**KOCHI - 18.**| |**4**|**SREENIVASAN**| ||**AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN,**| ||**CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN - 682 011.**| |**5**|**GOWDA SARASWATHA SEVA SANGHAM (REGD.)**| ||**T.D.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 35,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT SRI.N.K.PRABHAKARA**| ||**NAICK.**| ||**R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD**| ||**R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.S.LETHA**| |**THIS **|**OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON**| |**25.10.2019,**|**THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE**| |**FOLLOWING:**|| **-3-** ## **OP(C).No.2147 OF 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the petitioners in O.P. (Society) No.946/2016 on the files of the Sixth Additional District Court – Ernakulam. 2. The above original petition was filed by petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 herein and others under Section 25 of the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 praying for removing the existing Executive Committee and appointing a fresh governing body through appropriate election and for other allied reliefs. The fourth petitioner herein is respondent No.30 in the above said original petition. The petitioner Nos.5 and 6 herein are advocates practicing in Ernakulam. They were the counsel appearing for the petitioners in the above said original petition. The petitioner Nos.72, 106, 107 and **-4-** ## **OP(C).No.2147 OF 2018** 130 before the court below, who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, filed Exts.P3 to P6 affidavits and applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. praying for proceeding against the petitioners herein, in accordance with law, contending that they did not sign the vakalath produced in the original petition. On receipt of the said applications, the court below passed Exts.P11 and P12 orders. The court below in Ext.P11 observed that an enquiry is inevitable. Therefore, the court below ordered to issue summons to petitioner Nos.5 and 6, who were Advocates who filed vakalath for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein. It appears fro m Ext.P12 that the court below issued notice to petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 to give evidence in the said application. Challenging Exts. P11 and P12, this original petition has been filed. 3. Heard. **-5-** ## **OP(C).No.2147 OF 2018** 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this is not a case where the court is empowered to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C as no offence was admittedly committed in respect of any document after its production before the court. In this case, the allegation in Exts.P3 to P6 is that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, who are the petitioners in Exts.P3 to P6 did not subscribe their signature in the vakalath, which means that respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein did not sign the vakalath to engage petitioner Nos.5 and 6. There is no allegation that any forgery was committed after the production of any document before the court. Section 340 Cr.P.C. provides that when upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-Section **-6-** **OP(C).No.2147 OF 2018** (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, proceed as provided under (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [AIR 2005 SC 2119:2005 KHC 647] held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. 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. Admittedly, there is no allegation that any forgery was committed in relation to the vakalath after its **-7-** ## **OP(C).No.2147 OF 2018** production before the court. In the said circumstances, the court below was not justified in initiating proceedings against the petitioners under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the court below as per Exts.P11 and P12 orders cannot be sustained. Consequently, I set aside Exts.P11 and P12 orders and further proceedings pursuant thereto. In the result, this Original Petition stands allowed. **Sd/B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE** Nkr/28.10.2019 ## **-8-** ## **OP(C).No.2147 OF 2018** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTO COPY OF THE O.P.(SOCIETY) NO.946 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTO COPY OF VAKALATH FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.** - **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTO COPY OF THE I.A.NO.717 OF 2017 IN OP(SOCIETY) NO.946 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTO COPY OF THE I.A.NO.803 OF 2017 IN OP (SOCIETY) NO.946 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTO COPY OF THE I.A.NO.806 OF 2017 IN OP(SOCIETY) NO.946 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P6 PHOTO COPY OF THE IA NO.718 OF 2017 IN OP (SOCIETY) NO.946 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF JOINT COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN IA 717 OF 2017 IN OP(SOCIETY) NO.946 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF JOINT COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN IA 803 OF 2017 IN OP(SOCIETY) NO.946 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF JOINT COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN IA 806 OF 2017 IN OP(SOCIETY) NO.946 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF JOINT COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN IA 718 OF 2017 IN OP(SOCIETY) NO.946 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P11 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2018 IN IA NO.803/2017 IN OP(SOCIETY) NO.946/2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-VII, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P12 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2018 IN OP(SOCIETY) NO.946/2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-VII, ERNAKULAM.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**