K.S. LODHA, J.—This application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed on behalf of the 19 petitioners against whom the police is investigating a case for offences u/ss 120B. 465, 467, 469 and 471 I.P.C. on a complaint forwarded to it by the learned Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Karanpur, u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C.

2. I need not state the facts of the case at length because this application can be disposed of on a short point. Suffice it to say that the complainant Shri Inder Prasad had filed this complaint for the aforesaid offences alleging that the present petitioners had conspired and fabricated the resolutions dated 16.8 83 and 28.3.83 with a view to defame the complainant and to harm him. The complainant had before the filing of this complaint also filed a civil suit for declaration of the aforesaid resolutions as void and ineffective and for a permanent injunction restraining the present petitioners from interfering with his working as a Principal of Gyan Jyoti Siksha Samiti, Srikaranpur on 6.9.83 whereas the complaint was filed on 1.12.83.

3. The case of the petitioners is that no offences as alleged in complaint are made out from the complaint and, therefore, the investigations in the case would result into unnecessary harassment to them and in the second place, it has been urged that as a civil suit had already been filed in which the alleged forged resolutions have already been produced before the court, cognizance of the offences u/ss 465, 467, 469 and 471 I.P.C. would be barred in view of s. 195 (I) (b) (ii) unless a complaint is filed by the court in which the alleged forged documents have been produced in accordance with s. 340 Cr. P.C. and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by the investigations by the police at this stage on this complaint.

4. On the other hand, it has been urged by the learned counsel for non-petitioner no. 2 that the complaint clearly makes out the offences alleged and that even though the cognizance of the offences may be barred till a complaint is filed by the court as envisaged by s. 195(1 )(b)(ii) read with s. 340 Cr. P.C., the investigations of the case would not be barred. On the other hand, these investigations may facilitate the Court before whom the documents have been filed in the civil suit to consider the question of expediency of filing the complaint.

5. I have given my careful consideration to these contentions and in my opinion, the second ground itself is sufficient to dispose of this application. A bare reading of s. 195(l)(b)(ii) would go to show that if the alleged offence is one described in s. 463 or punishable u/ss 471,475 or 476 Cr.P.C. and is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, the criminal court shall take cognizance of such an offence only upon a complaint by the court before whom the document has been so produced or given in evidence or by the court to which that court is subordinate. It is not disputed before me that the offences alleged in the present case fall within the ambit of s. 195(1) (b)(ii). The contention of the learned counsel for non-petitioner no. 2, however, is two fold. In the first instance, he urged that in order to attract the provisions of this subsection, the offence must have been committed in respect of the document after it had been filed in the court but if the document is alleged to have been forged before the commencement of the proceedings before the court, this sub-section will have no application and in this connection, he has placed reliance upon Philip v. Baphael (I), a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. I have considered this contention and have carefully gone through the authority relied upon by the learned counsel but I am unable to accept this contention as, in my opinion, the fact that the document is alleged to have been forged before it was produced or given in evidence in court, does not detract from the provisions of s. 195(1 )(b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document