JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2011, passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application No.3213 of 2011 dismissing the appellants application for quashing the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 being ICR No.180 of 2010 dated 5.7.2010 under Sections 463, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A. A complaint bearing ICR No.271 of 2003 was lodged by respondent no.2 before Madhavpura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294A, 506(2) and 114 IPC read with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, naming the appellant and one other individual. Subsequently, considering the nature of injuries, Section 307 IPC was also added and the chargesheet was submitted after having investigated with respect to the said offences wherein the appellant as well as his wife had been arrayed as accused. After committal of the case to the learned Sessions Court, the Sessions Case No.175 of 2007 is being tried.

B. During the hearing of the Sessions Case No.175 of 2007, the prosecution examined one Dr. Ghanshyam Chunilal Patel (PW.3) on 12.5.2010, wherein he deposed that he had treated the complainant and also produced a copy of the injury certificate, Exh.105. It was alleged that some portion of the documents produced by the said witness had been tampered with and as the appellant herein had been a beneficiary of the same, it was suggested that some manipulation had been done by the appellant. Thus, the complainant filed an application to enquire into the matter of tampering with the medical report.

C. An application for cancellation of bail was also filed alleging that the appellant had tampered with the documents produced before the Sessions Court for obtaining the bail.

D. Subsequent thereto, a complaint was lodged on 5.7.2010 being FIR No.180 of 2010 under Sections 463, 465, 468, 471 and 114 IPC in respect of tampering with the aforesaid medical report.

E. The appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No.3213 of 2011 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) to quash the complaint lodged before Shahibaug Police Station being ICR 2 No.180 of 2010. The High Court dismissed the said application rejecting the contention of the appellant that such a complaint was not maintainable unless it is made by the court itself under the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a settled legal proposition that in view of the provisions of Sections 195/340 Cr.P.C. where the forgery is alleged to have been made in the court, the complaint is not maintainable unless it is made by the court itself. In support of this proposition, he has placed a very heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court in M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Anr. [JT 1999 (8) SC 530 : AIR 2000 SC 168]. It has been submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the complaint is liable to be quashed.

4. On the contrary, Shri Nirav C. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel for the State, have submitted that in case the documents have been forged outside the court before being filed and relied upon in the court proceedings, the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are not attracted. To buttress their case, they have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. [JT 2005 (3) SC 195 : AIR 2005 SC 2119]. It has been suggested by them that the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In Mohan Singh v. Late Amar Singh (through LRs), [JT 1998 (6) SC 98 : AIR 1999 SC 482], while dealing with