The court emphasized the requirement for the document to be in custodia legis for the application of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and the jurisdiction to file a complaint regarding a forged document.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the matter is subjudice but even then he has a right to file complaint with regard to forge document and the learned trial court has rightly taken the cognizance against which non petitioner No. 2 Hoshiar Singh has preferred revision. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision on the ground that complaint can be filed by the court only before whom the document is pending. Learned Sessions Judge on this ground allowed the revision and quash the order of cognizance against which this revision has been preferred.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no need for the court to the complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. he has placed reliance in the case of lqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, 2005(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 557 : 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1101 .

3. I have gone through the judgment. In this case it has been held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) will be attached only when the offence has been committed with respect to a document produced or given in the evidence in a proceeding in any court that is during the time when the document was in custodia legis. Here also the matter is subjudice in the court and the i document is in custodia legis. Thus, the revisional court has rightly quashed the cognizance. If the Court where the document is lying is of the opinion that such document is forged one it can proceed in accordance with law.

4. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.Revision dismissed.

*******