Point of Law : Bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed praying this Court to set aside the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Court of Principal I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in P.C.No.1918/2018, restore the same and direct the Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2010, the petitioner filed O.S.No.138/2010 in the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru against the respondent No.1 and three others for declaration of title in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.8/2, Martikhyathanahalli, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk measuring 20 guntas in extent.

3. The petitioner claims that he is the legal heir of deceased M. Puttegowda as his son. His grandson is Aditya Jagannath. The respondent No.1 claimed in the said suit that she is the foster daughter of M. Puttegowda and further claims that deceased M. Puttegowda has executed a Will dated 07.02.2003 bequeathing the property in question to her and therefore, she is the owner. The Trial Court has framed the issue as to whether she has proved that M. Puttegowda has bequeathed the suit property in her favour as per the said Will. The respondent No.1 claims that Will was executed on 07.02.2003 in the presence of the witnesses before the competent Sub-Registrar and the said Will is produced and marked as Ex.D3. She further claims that Ex.D3-Will was got registered four years after the death of M. Puttegowda and she does not know how in Ex.D3, who wrote ‘erased’ and as to why it is so done. The said Will was presented for registration on 13.03.2008 and the signature of Ramu is removed by ink after registration.

4. The Trial Court decreed the suit and an appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed. The Appellate Court also observed regarding the evidence of respondent No.2, wherein it is observed that it is necessary to note that on page No.4 of the said Will, at the bottom, there has been erasures with a white paint and the Sub-Registrar has signed on the same. Evidently, none of the pages of the Will bear any seal of the Sub-Registrar. It is evident that the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar are on the additional sheets and there cannot be any doubt that the erasure was by D.W.3. It is further observed that D.W.3 had no business to erase or manipulate the contents of the Will, which was presented to him for registration and he could not have meddled with the signature of the attesting witnesses.

5. Hence, in the revision petition, the petitioner has contended that the first respondent being legally bound by an oath to state the truth, has made a statement in O.S.No.138/2010 as defendant No.1 pertaining to the Will dated 07.02.2003, marked as Ex.D3 knowing to be false and thereby has given false evidence falling within the purview of Section 191 of Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides that, the first respondent by fabricating the said document i.e., Will purported to have been executed by M. Puttegowda on 07.02.2003 containing a false statement that he has bequeathed the property in question. The said acts were done not when it was in custodia legis but, before it was produced in the Court and marked as an exhibit. Hence, the revision petitioner has contended that the Trial Court has gravely erred in relying on the dictum in the case of SH. NARENDRA KUMAR SRINIVAS VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2019) 3 SCC 318 without application of judicial and judicious mind, as it ought to have done, by applying its judicial and judicious mind.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that the Trial Court ought to have analyzed the fact by applying its judicial and judicious mind to decipher whether the facts in that case are apposite and applicable to the present one, wherein Ex.D3 was forged and fabricated not when it was in custodia legis but, earlier and then produced in the Court. It ought to have found so and held that the law