( 1 ) THIS is a petition to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 341 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) A private complaint was filed before the V Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad. It was sent for investigation under S. 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. The Station House Officer, Nampally Police Station, after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the accused for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 468 and 471 of the I. P. C.

( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the owner of the shops bearing municipal Nos. 5-7-568 to 5-7-575, situated at Nampally, Hyderabad and that A-3 and A-4 are the tenants. A-1 is the son of A-2. They have cloth business opposite to the shop of the owner i. e. the complainant. The complainant wanted to sell the shops as he was getting very low rent and he made this known to some of the accused. Therefore, A-3 and A-4 were afraid that the shops would be purchased by somebody else and A-3 and A-4 would be asked to vacate these shops. Therefore, A-1 and A-2 with the evil intention of getting the shop for a negligible price conspired with A-3 and A-4 and fabricated a document by using a revenue stamp containing the signature of the complainant in the Rokad of A-1 and also brought into existence a forged receipt for a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00. On the basis of this document, A-1 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. On the basis of the above facts mentioned in the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 468 and 471 I. P. C.

( 4 ) IN this petition Mr. Somakonda Reddy, the learned advocate, strenuously contends that having regard to the provisions of S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Cr. P. C. the private complainant of the SHO, Nampally Police Station, cannot file the charge-sheet. If at all, a complaint would be filed in writing by the court before which the civil suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale on the basis of the alleged forged document is pending. The learned advocate further submits that although the offence punishable under S. 468 I. P. C. , is not specifically mentioned in S. 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. nevertheless, having regard to the opening phrase "of any offence described in S. 463" found in Clause (ii) of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. , the offence punishable under S. 468 I. P. C. would also come within the category of the offence described in S. 463. So far as Section 120-B, I. P. C. is concerned, Mr. Somakonda Reddy states that S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. specifically provides for that offence. Therefore, submits the learned advocate that so far as these offences are concerned, the trial court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 468 and 471 I. P. C. , on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the police, whereas all these three Sections are found in S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) and (iii) Cr. P. C. and, therefore, since the prosecution has not been laid on the basis of a complaint in writing by the civil court before which the alleged document is pending decision, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) MR. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private complainant, contends that a perusal of S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. would show that only those offences which are described in S. 463 I. P. C. , and mentioned specifically as punishable under Sections 471, 475 or S. 476 are the only offences for which the court can take cognizance of on the basis of the complaint in writing of that court before which the civil suit is pending. Therefore, since Sections 468, 120-B read with 468 are involved in this case, with regard to which S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. , is completely silent, the trial court was correct in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 120-B and 468. So far as Section 471 is concerned, Mr. Padmanabha Reddy cont