H.N. Sarma, J.

1. By filing this petition under section 482, Cr.PC, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR on the basis of Algapur P.S. Case No. 278/09 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1202/09) under section 108/120(B)/468/34, IPC.

2. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. F.U. Borbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

3. The necessary facts, in brief, for disposal of this criminal petition are as follows --

The complainant being the wife of the petitioner No. 1 alleging nonpayment of maintenance allowance, she instituted a proceeding under section 125, Cr.PC in the court of the learned CJM, Hailakandi which was registered as 1280c/2009. The aforesaid case was filed on 26.3.2009. The petitioner/husband being served with notice of the proceeding appeared in the case and submitted his written statement on 16.10.2009. In the written statement it is alleged that there was a conciliation proceeding relating to the matrimonial dispute between the parties held on 14.6.2009 pursuance to which a deed of relinquishment "Salishnama", etc., was executed by the respondent/wife on 14.6.2009, according to which the petitioner/husband pronounced talak and the respondent/wife was paid Rs. 1,01,000 in cash as the unpaid dower, maintenance for the iddat period, future maintenance and for gifted articles etc. And accordingly the respondent/wife is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance.

4. Upon perusal of the aforesaid written statement filed by the respondent/petitioner, the petitioner filed a complainant case in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi which was registered as C.R. Case No. 1280c/09. The aforesaid C.R. Case was forwarded by the learned Magistrate for necessary investigation under the provision of section 156(3), Cr.PC. Thereafter Algapur P.S. Case No.278/09 under section 108/120(B)/468/34, IPC was registered by police. On the next date of filing of the complaint Case before the Magistrate the petitioner also instituted Title Suit No. 142/09 in the Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi on 17.12.2009. In the aforesaid Title Suit the petitioner prayed for a declaration that the respondent/wife was legally divorced by the petitioner and also paid maintenance allowance as required under the law.

5. Upon registration of the case police having started investigation the petitioner has approached this court by filing this petition for quashing the FIR.

6. Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to section 340 of the Cr.PC, submits that since the allegation of elation of false and fabricated documents is made in connection with the proceeding pending before the CJM, Hailakandi, the necessary complaint regarding commission of such forgery, if any, is to be made only on the basis of the complaint made by the court and the respondent/wife has no authority to make any complaint in this regard.

It is contended by Mr. Dhar that in view of the above facts situation, the present case attracts section 340 of the Cr.PC. The offence alleged is punishable under section 195 of the IPC. Accordingly, continuation of the proceeding is an abuse of the process of law and accordingly the proceeding should be quashed. In support of his contention Mr. Dhar has referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajanlal and Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

7. Refuting the contention of Mr. Dhar, Mr. Borbhuiyan appearing for the respondent/wife submits that on proper interpretation of section 340 of the Cr.PC, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted and accordingly the provision of section 340 of the Cr.PC is not attracted in the instant case, inasmuch as, forgery/fabrication of document was committed at a time prior to the institution of the proceeding before the learned Magistrate. In support of this contention Mr. Borbhuiyan ha