1. On 25.08.2011 respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 465, 471, 506 and 420 IPC. The jurisdictional Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of respondent No.2, took cognizance of the offence and directed respondent NO.1 – police to investigate the matter. Now the jurisdictional police have registered a case against the petitioner in crime No.323/2011. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court to quash the proceedings.

2. Second respondent contend that she filed a civil suit in O.S.No.10743/1992 against Sreeramaiah and others for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The subject matter of this suit is 30 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 63/2, 112/3 and 115 situated Kowdenahalli village, K.R. Puram, Bangalore. In this O.S.No.10743/1992 second respondent produced certain documents. On contest this O.S. No.10743/1992 came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 10.06.2009. When the second respondent wanted to take back the documents produced in this suit, to her shock and surprise that documents were already withdrawn by forging her signature. It is the petitioner who is the beneficiary of withdrawal of the documents in O.S. No. 10743/1992. It is the petitioner who has misused the process of law and forged signature of second respondent and had withdrawn the documents. Therefore, the petitioner filed the private complaint in PCR No.19266/2011 against the petitioner. Aggrieved by filing of private complaint and taking cognizance by the jurisdictional Magistrate, referring the matter to the police and in turn the police registering a case against the petitioner in Cr. No.323/2011 petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 CRPC.

3. Sri Sadashiva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is not a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.10743/1992. Petitioner has not purchased the property involved in O.S.No.10743/1992. Petitioner is not the beneficiary of the documents produced in this suit and he has not misused the process of law nor forged the signature of the complainant. On the other had petitioner purchased land in y.No.111/5 situate at Kowdenahalli village, Bangalore East Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 12.3.2010 from his vendor Smt.Chitra Annaswamy and Nagaraj. With an intention to harass and intimidate the petitioner the second respondent has lodged the private complaint. The alleged allegation against the petitioner relates to illegal withdrawal of documents from the court record in O.S.No.10743/1992 and as such there is a bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offence. It is contended that the complaint lodged by the second respondent is nothing but abuse of process of law and there is a statutory bar and as such the proceedings are to be quashed.

4. Per contra, Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel for the second respondent contends that the allegations made in the complaint before the Trial Court requires to be investigated and at the initial stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed. The bar under Section 195 CRPC is not applicable to the facts of this case. He supports the order of the Trial Court in taking cognizance of the offence. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

i. Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 1 SCC 1

ii. Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 753

iii. Ran Dhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 5 SCC 536

iv. Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another, (2005) 4 SCC 370

v. D. Venkatasubramaniam and others Vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari and another, (2009) 10 SCC 488

5. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers.

6. At this stage it is necessary to examine under what circumstances inherent powers specified under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court. The word ‘inherent power’ specified i