JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The appeal arises on a very narrow canvass.

2. The appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents alleging that the respondents had committed the offence punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 470 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

3. The main allegation made by the appellant is that respondent No. 2 Ramprasad Pancheshwar had prepared false and forged documents, namely, personal recognizance bond and surety bond in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2003 and the rest of the respondents conspired and actively helped respondent No. 2 for forging the said documents.

4. It is the case of the appellant that those documents had been eventually filed on record in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2003 pending against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramtek (hereinafter referred to as the “JMFC”).

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 6th November 2004 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved thereby, the revision petition came to be filed.

6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide order dated 14th March 2005 has held that such a complaint could not have been filed except in writing of the Court concerned or some other Court, that too a subordinate one.

7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, found that the allegations made by the revision petitioners were serious in nature, and therefore, directed that if any application is filed by the appellant under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) the learned JMFC would make a suitable preliminary enquiry and thereafter, record his finding to that effect as contemplated under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.

8. The said order passed by the Revisional Court came to be challenged by the appellant before the High Court in an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The same came to be rejected. Hence, the present appeal.

9. We have heard Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rahul Chitnis and Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

10. Mr. Sachin Patil submits that the alleged forgery had not been committed during the pendency of the proceedings. It is submitted that it is the contention of the appellant that the respondents had forged the documents earlier and used them in the proceedings initiated against the appellant. It is, therefore, submitted that the bar of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. would not be applicable.

11. Mr. Sachin Patil has relied on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwa and Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, (2005) 4 SCC 370.

12. Mr. Sachin Patil further submits that though the judgment of the Constitution Bench was cited before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, it did not consider the same in correct perspective.

13. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, on the contrary, submits that the appellant has already accepted the order passed by the Revisional Court and filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. He further submits that, on account of the interim relief granted in the present appeal, the said application could not be proceeded further. He submits that as such, the question that is involved in the present matter is purely an academic question in which the Court should not go.

14. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, supports the submission made by Mr. Rahul Chitnis.

15. The narrow question that requires to be considered is as to whether the embargo under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable when the allegation that the documents which are sought to be used as evidence were already fabricated and forged prior to filing in evidence.

16. This Court, in the case of Surjit Singh and Others vs. Balbir Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 533 had taken a view thus:

“10. It would thus be clear that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the foundation of forgery