The court clarified that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, which prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences related to forgery of documents, does not apply to offences committed before the initiation of criminal proceedings in a criminal court.

1. - Instant revision impugns the order dated November 21, 1996 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Baran whereby he took cognizance against the accused petitioner under Section 194 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code in criminal case No. 15 of 1996.

2. In order to adjudicate upon the controversy posed before me, it is necessary to set out the admitted facts at the outset.

3. A complaint under Sections 194, 195 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted by Laxmi Narain Agrawal, Advocate before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on September 24, 1996 against the petitioner Brajraj Singh who is also an Advocate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complaint and vide its order dated November 21, 1996 took cognizance of the offences under sections 195 and 211 Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioner. Against this order that the present action for filing the revision has been resorted to by the petitioner.

4. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the impugned order.

5. Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant Laxmi Narain Agrawal, raised following preliminary objections:

6. The first objection raised by Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel is that the issue of process is an interim order and not a judgment and the same can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused. In support of this argument, reliance was placed on K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and another (AIR 1992 SC 2206) . Mr. Goyal, learned counsel further contended that this court in Vishnu Dutt and another v. Govind Das and others [1994 (2) RLR 643=1995 Cr. L. J. 263] indicated that order taking cognizance is an interim order and it cannot be quashed by the High Court under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Raghunadan Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently canvassed that no cognizance could have been taken by the learned Magistrate in view of the provisions contained in section 195 Cr. P.C. which recites that only the Magistrate was competent to institute complaint. Mr. Khandelwal, learned counsel placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta (AIR 1969 SC 355) , P.C. Gupta v. State and another (1974 Cr. L.J. 945) , K. Rama Krishnan v. Station House Officer, Hosdurg Police Station (1986 Cr. L.J. 392) , M.P. Sirajudeen v. M. Ganesana (1987 (1) Crimes 561) , M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur (AIR 1967 SC 528) and M. Devasenapathi and another v. K. Rajamani (1984 Cr. L.J. NOC 34 (Mad.) , Liyaqat Ali Gauri v. State of Rajasthan [1995(2) RLR 652= 1995 RCC 448] , Kamalapati Trivedi v. The State of West Bengal (AIR 1979 SC 777) and Dujai v. The State and another (1962 (1) Cr. L.J. 627) .

8. It is necessary at this juncture to examine the provisions contained under section 195 (1) Criminal Procedure Code which reads as under:

"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) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or 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 de