Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC bars Courts from taking cognizance of offences related to forgery of documents produced in Court proceedings without a complaint from the Court concerned.

Indu Prabha Singh, J.

1. This is a petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 24-7-1992 passed in Criminal Revision No. 30/92 by Shri S.K. Mishra, Sessions Judge, Madhepura, by which the order dated 23-8-1991 passed by Shri R. Kumar, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in G.R. Case No.112/90 (Gamharia P.S. Case No. 005/90) was confirmed.

2. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. Opposite party No.2 Shitla Nand Jha, lodged Complaint Case No. 702(c) of 1989 against the petitioner and one Basudeo Mushar before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura on 16-11-1989. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the complaint petition to Gamhariya police station for registering a case and submission of final form, Accordingly. Gamhariya P.S. Case No. 5/90 dated 21-1-1990 was registered under Secs. 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for an occurrence alleged to have taken place in the year 1928. As per this complaint case, the petitioner was said to be the Tahsildar of the late Banshidhar Dhandhania of Bhagalpur and in this capacity he kept various tent receipts of the landlord with him out of which seven receipts from 1333 F.S. to 1346 F.S. were issued to Bachchu Mushar by the petitioner. In the proceeding under Secs. 144 and 145 of the Code (Misc. case No. 354 of 1986) these receipts were produced before the learned Magistrate by Basudeo Mushar, son of Bachchu Mushar. This proceeding was, however, dropped by the Sub Divisional Officer on 6-9-1989 with an observation that parties were free to move competent Court for redressal of their grievances.

3. The complaint petition was filed on the assumption that the rent receipts produced by Basudeo Mushar were not originals but on the other hand they were forged documents. The police after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet as mentioned above also against the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has contended that he is an old man of about 80 years of age and the alleged offence is said to have been committed more than 65 years ago. The proceeding under Secs. 144 and 145 of the Code was itself dropped. Opposite party No.2 had filed a complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Madhepura who wrongly sent it to the Police on the basis of which the charge-sheet has been submitted and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and Basudeo Mushar and transferred the case for disposal to the Court of Shri R.N. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura. The petitioner on hearing some rumour about taking of cognizance obtained necessary information and filed Criminal Revision on No. 30/92 before the learned Sessions Judge. Madhepura against the order dated 23-8-1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This revision petition was heard and disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 24- 4-1992 by which he did not find any necessity to interfere in the matter at this stage, though he held that by mistake cognizance was also taken for the offence under Sec. 471 of the Indian Penal Code. However he observed in paragraph 3 of his judgment that it was open to the petitioner to point it out to the Trial Court at the time of framing of charge. So far as offences under Sec. 465, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code were concerned, he did not find any necessity to interfere with the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence.

5. In this case the petitioner has further submitted that the learned Court below without taking into consideration the fact that if any forged paper was produced before the Executive Magistrate then it was for the same Court and not any private person to lodge a complaint after making necessary inquiry under Sec. 340 of the Code and as such the complaint petition itself should have been dismissed. Instead of doing so the learned Chief Judicial