ORDER :

1. The respondent herein had filed O.S. No. 93 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner herein for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondent herein. The case of the respondent was that the petitioner herein had executed a deed of sale registered as Document No. 4926/1986 in favour of the respondent and thereafter sought to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondent. An application was also filed for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the said possession of the respondent. In the course of the hearing of the application, the said document bearing No. 4926/1986 was produced before the Court.

2. The case of the petitioner was that he had never executed any deed of sale and the document produced by the respondent was a fabricated document. Thereupon, the petitioner had moved I.A. No. 13 of 2020 under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C.’) to conduct an enquiry into this issue and to forward a complaint to the appropriate Magistrate having jurisdiction for prosecution under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. This application was dismissed by the trial Court by an order dated 22.03.2021. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this revision petition.

3. The trial Court took the view that an enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is premature, as no finding has been given by the trial Court regarding the said registered deed of sale and in any event, no material has been placed before the Court to establish ingredients of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court took this view on the ground that the suit is for permanent injunction and the question of whether the document was fabricated or not cannot be decided until the issues are framed and decided in the main suit.

4. Heard Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Chapter XI of IPC deals with the offence for giving false evidence and offences against public justice. For initiating prosecution for the said offences, the procedure contemplated in Section 195 r/w 340 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed.

6. Section 195 of Cr.P.C. mandates that no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205, 211 and 228 of IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation, to any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or by such Officer of the Court, whom the Court may authorize in writing in this behalf or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. requires that before an application/complaint is made under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. the Court initiating such a complaint has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry is made into any offence referred to above, which appears to have, been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or in respect of a document produced or given evidence in a proceeding in that Court. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. also stipulates that such an opinion has to be formed after the preliminary enquiry if any, if thought necessary, is conducted.

7. The Judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K. Rajagopala Rao vs. P. Radhakrishna Murthy, 2002 (3) ALT 513 and Sadi Srinivasa Reddy vs. Sadi Rama Devi and Another, 2005 (2) ALT (Crl.) 55 (AP) essentially set out the same principle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pritish vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2002) 1 SCC 253 also held that the procedure to be followed in such complaints is that the Court where the fabricated document has been produced sho