IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restriction imposed by Section 195 of Cr.P.C. on the power of the Court to take cognizance of certain offences, and the interpretation of 'false documents' under Sections 463 and 464 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ani, District Kullu, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner against the cancellation report as confirmed by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 0100010 of 2011 dated 10.01.2019. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were referred before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. It was asserted that the accused No. 4 (Prem Raj) was facing encroachment proceedings before Collector-cum-DFO. The accused prepared a false report that the encroachment was removed and the land was vacant. Accused No. 3 made a false statement in the Court to benefit accused No. 4. The structure of accused No. 4 still existed on the spot and the construction was continuing. This fact was found in the demarcation given by Tehsildar on 08.08.2013.

3. The police conducted the investigation and submitted a cancellation report. Petitioner-objector filed the objection that the investigation was not conducted properly. The statements of authorized officials were not recorded. Learned JMFC held that no offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC was made out. It appears to be an offence of giving false evidence in Court for committing forgery. Section 195 of Cr.P.C. creates a bar for taking cognizance of such offence if it is committed regarding the Court proceeding except upon the written complaint filed by the Court. No complaint was filed by the concerned Court and it is not permissible to file any complaint to the police.

4. Being aggrieved from the order, the petitioner filed a revision before learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr. Learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur upheld these findings and held that Section 195 of Cr.P.C. creates a bar for taking cognizance of the commission of offences punishable under Section 466, and 471 of IPC without any complaint.

5. Being aggrieved from the orders passed by learned Courts below, the present petition has been filed asserting that there was sufficient evidence to show that the accused had forged the documents to benefit Prem Raj. The police should have filed a charge sheet instead of filing a cancellation report. Learned JMFC, Ani erred in accepting the cancellation report on the minor technicality. Learned Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the revision petition on technical grounds. The provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the present case. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the orders passed by learned Courts below be set aside.

6. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sohail Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 1/State, Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 2, 3, 6 & 7 and Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sumit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5.

7. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below erred in dismissing the objection and accepting the cancellation report. It was wrongly held that the cognizance of the matter was barred under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. There was sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence; therefore, he prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and the orders passed by learned Courts below be set aside.

8. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1 submitted that the learned Courts below had rightly held that the Court could not have taken cognizance without their being a complaint from the concerned Court. The pe