V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 59 of 1994 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 26-7-1993 at 1730 hours a complaint was received from the Chief City Planner of mch, Hyderabad stating therein that the petitioner furnished a forged document in the name of Engineer-in-Chief, Randb department to erect a shed measuring about 8 -40" abutting to northern side of Gandhi bhavan compound wall and constructed the shed without prior permission from MCH. Afterenquiry, the Corporation has removed the unauthorised construction of the shed on 3-4-1993 with the assistance of local police and the same was informed to the government on 10-6-1993. The accused with a forged document submitted to the mch and further he approached before the vacation Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and filed a suit and obtained interim orders in i. A. No. l424 of 1993 in O. S. No. 50 of 1993 restraining the MCH from demolishing the shed and requested to take legal action. After investigation, a charge-sheet is filed under Sections 420 and 471 I. P. C. , on the basis of alleged forged document.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel forthe petitioner now contends that for the prosecution of offence under Section471 I. P. C. , acomplaint as contemplated under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of Cr. P. C. has to be filed by a public servant. But in this case no complaint is filed by a public servant. Therefore, to that extent the court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 471 I. P. C. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the offence under Section 420 i. P. C. is also linked with the offence under section 471 I. P. C. and unless the offence under Section 471 I. P. C. is established, the petitioner cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 420 I. P. C.

( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that the offence under Section 471 i. P. C. is different from the offence under section 420 I. P. C.

( 5 ) IT is relevant to extract Section 195 (I) (b) (ii) which isas follows:"prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence- (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (b) (ii) 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 or. ,"

( 6 ) BY reading the above section, it is clear that when an offence is alleged under section 463 or punishable under Section 471, section 475 or Section 476 I. P. C. , the Court is barred from taking cognizance unless the complaint is filed by apublic servant. This is a settled principle of law and this has been held in K, Ramana v. Station House Officer (1) 1991 (3)ALT354 to which one of us is a member (YBR, J. ).

( 7 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings are to be quashed in respect of offence under Section 420 I. P. C. also. We are not able to agree with this contention. In the above cited judgment, it has been clearly held that for the offence for which section 195 of Cr. P. C. is not applicable, there is no bar to proceed with the prosecution. The same view was taken by the Supreme court in State of U. P. v, Suresh Chandra (2) AIR 1984 SC 1108 observing as follows:"criminalp. C. (2 of l974),sections482, 195-Powers of High Court - Accused charged for offences under Sections 262, 263, 467, 471, 420 and 120b, IPC - proceedings for offences under sections 467, 471 and 120b quashed being not made out in complaint and not because they were covered by Section 195 cr. P. C.- Order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings in toto - Held proper. (Penal Code (45 of 1860) Sections 467, 471,120b ). "

( 8 ) IN the circumstances w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document