1. - Through this petition, the petitioner seeks the quashment of the F.I.R. No. 158/99 R.S. Balotra under section 467, 468, 471, and 420 Indian Penal Code.

2. Mr. Kumbhat, pointing out that the receipt alleged to have been forged was filed in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, contends that the Court only can file complaint for the offence of forgery. He files an affidavit purported to have been sworn by Nena Ram before the Notary Public on 19.8.1999 in favour of the petitioner. Relying on the cases of Kailash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan 1998 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1001 , Kartar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1985 RLR-192 and Dharam Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1985 RLR-282 he submits that the F.I.R. should be quashed.

3. Mr. Sandhu, on the other land, contends that section 195 Criminal Procedure Code does bar investigation of a case, and therefore, F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed. His further contention is that the requirement of filing of a complaint by the Court arises only when the forgery is committed after the document is filed in the Court. His further submission is that the original document has not been filed by the petitioner in the Court and there cannot be pr