1. This petition has been preferred assailing an order dated 15th May, 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) whereby the learned ASJ discharged the accused of offence under Section 420/468/471/409/120-B IPC.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. for registration of FIR and in his complaint he alleged that the accused persons including court Bailiff in execution of an ex-parte decree for possession of the premises visited the residence-cum-shop of the complainant and at that time accused in connivance with Court Bailiff, committed various offences namely theft, forging of documents and preparation of a forged list of articles lying in the house. He submitted that lock of the house was broken and all articles were taken out. He alleged that a forged superdarinama was also prepared by the Bailiff. The learned MM, on the basis of this complaint, got an FIR registered and Bailiff and the Decree Holder were sent for facing trial and the charges were framed against them. One of the accused expired during trial. In revision against the order of MM, the learned ASJ came to conclusion that the respondent had obtained physical vacant possession of the property in question by following due process of law i.e. by filing the civil suit and waiting till final decision and thereafter carried out execution through Court. He committed no wrong and no prosecution could be launched against the officials of the Civil Court for the act done in compliance of the orders of the Court. He found that the revisionist waited for 14 long years in the court before he obtained decree in his favour and thereafter got it executed. The respondent did not care to appear and contest the suit before the Civil Court for several years and did not choose to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. He could not be allowed to mis-use the process of law by filing an application u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C., making allegations against the Bailiff and Decree Holder and getting an FIR registered. He observed that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the respondent and no cheating could have been said to be committed and therefore there was no wrongful loss to the complainant or wrongful gain to the respondent and there was no ingredient of commission of offence of forgery.

3. The learned ASJ, therefore, allowed the revision petition filed by the accused and discharged the accused.

4. It is not disputed that all acts allegedly committed by the respondent/accused including the Bailiff were the acts committed during the course of an execution proceeding carried under the directions of the court. Thus if any offence was committed; it was during the proceedings of execution of decree being carried by an official of the Court at the directions of the Court. Section 195 of Cr. P.C. prohibits taking cognizance of any offence in the following words:

195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) If any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) Of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) Of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) Of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, or (ii) Of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of