Important Point
Bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not applicable to a case where forgery of document was committed before the document was produced in a Court.

Judgment

Thomas, J.-Can prosecution be maintained in respect of a forged document produced in court unless complaint has been filed by the court concerned in that behalf? In other words, the question involved in this appeal is, whether the prohibition contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) would apply to such prosecution. The aforesaid question, tick­lish it may appear to some extent, seemed to have received a quietus from this Court with the pronouncement in Patel Laljibhai Somabha v. The State of Gujarat1, while considering the scope of its corresponding provision in the old Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. But a subsequent decision of this Court in Gopalakrishna Menon & Anr. v. D. Raja Reddy & Anr.2, which struck a different note thereon seemed to have revived the issue and kept in buoying up in the legal stream. That question, in this appeal, has arisen from the following facts :

2. A complaint was filed by second respondent (Lal Narain Singh) in the court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging offences, inter alia, under Sections 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the facts that appellants had forged a document (certified copy of Jamabandi-Rent Roll) and produced it in a court of Executive Magistrate which was then dealing with proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police as provided in Section 156(3) of the Code. Police registered an FIR on the basis of the said complaint and after investigation laid a charge-sheet against appellants for those offences. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of those offences and issued process to the accused. Appellants then moved Patna High Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the prosecution on the main ground that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the said offences in view of the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code.

3. Before the High Court, appellants cited the decision of this Court in Gopala Krishna Menon (supra) but a single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said petition filed under Section 482 by relying on a later decision of this Court in Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra3 . Appellants therefore, filed this appeal by special leave.

4. Shri K.B. Sinha, learned senior counsel contended that though the decision in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat (supra) was rendered by a three Judge Bench of this Court it is no longer relevant as the said decision was rendered under the corresponding provision of the old Code which has a subtle difference from the new provision in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code and that difference makes all the change. According to the learned senior counsel, the ratio laid down by this Court in Gopalakrishna Menon would hold that field since that decision was rendered under the new Code.

5. Shri B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the first respondent (State of Bihar), on the other hand, argued that the slight change made in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code vis-a-vis the corresponding provi­sion in the old Code was not for deviating from the legal position settled by this Court in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai (supra). Learned counsel has highlighted the consequences of adopting a wider construc­tion as to the scope of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code. For decid­ing the issue it is appropriate to extract here the material portion of the said clause here:

“No Court shall take cognizance-of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleg­ed to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.’’

6. The contention of the appellants is that if the offence alleged is with respect to a document which r