JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:— These appeals by special leave arise out of a judgment dated January 9, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash the proceedings in toto which were pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). The High Court, however, quashed the proceedings only in respect of offences under Sections 467, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and directed prosecution of the respondents in respect of other offences to proceed according to law. In order to understand the implication of the judgment of the High Court. it may be necessary to narrate a few facts.

2. It appears that some time in the year 1967 Shankar Lal Bhargava who was officiating as Stamp Reporter in the Registry of the Allahabad. High Court, with the aid of Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Bishan Swarup, who were clerks of Advocates, removed used stamps and out of them reused three court-fee. stamps of the value of Rupees 1,000/- each in First Civil Appeal Nos. 281/67, 282/67 and 357/67. When the matter was detected, an enquiry was ordered and the Judicial Department of the High Court reported to the Registrar that court-fee stamps of the value of Rs. 23,007.50 p. (on 15 sheets) were missing from the judicial file of First Appeal No. 186 of 1960. The enquiry further revealed that in several other cases also court-fee stamps had been taken out from the original files and reused in new cases. The Registrar, of the High Court suspected that a well-organised gang of racketeers was operating in the High Court to defraud the Government by surreptitiously removing the used stamps from the judicial files and re-using them in new cases. The Registrar, with. the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court, reported the matter to the Inspector General of Police, U. P., who ordered the Criminal Investigation Department of U. P. to investigate into the matter and ultimately three charge-sheets were submitted for offences under Sections 262, 263, 467, 471, 420 and, 120 because of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The respondents filed an application before the High Court contending that as offences under Sections 461, 471 and 120B, I. P. C. fell within the purview of Section 195 of the Code, no. prosecution could be launched without the procedure, laid down in Section 195, being followed. It is common ground that no complaint as required by the mandatory provisions of Section 195 of the Code having been made, the proceedings could not have proceeded. The High Court held that so far as the offences under Sections 467, 471 and 120B. I. P. C. were concerned as they fell within the ambit of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code, no cognizance could be taken by the Magistrate without a complaint being filed. The relevant portion of Section 195 (1) (b) may be extracted thus :

"195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance :-

xx xx xx xx

(b) (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under S. 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 or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate."

4. On the facts mentioned above, it is clear to us that in the complaint sent by the Registrar to the Inspector General of Police, offences mentioned were offences under Sections 262, 263, 467, 380, 420 and 471 but from a perusal of the recitals in the original Memorandum which formed the basis of the complaint it seems to us that the only offences which have been made out would be offences under Sections 262, 263, 380 and 420 which are obviously not covered by Section 195 of the Code.

5. The High Court