The main legal point established is that the bar in Section 195(1)(ii)(b) of the Code does not apply when forgery of a document was committed before the document was produced in court.

JUDGMENT :

S.K.Mishra, J.

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in I.C.C. No.244/2013 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Puri, which was later registered as G.R. Case No.1472/2013 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Puri arising out of Puri Town P.S. Case No.129/2013, have assailed the order of the learned S.D.J.M. taking cognizance against them on 21.10.2013 for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 420/471/468/467/109/ 34 of the I.P.C., 1960 and issuing N.B.W. against them.

2. It is apparent from the records that the complainant in the I.C.C. case happens to be the legal heir of one Bipin Bihari Nanda. He along with others succeeded to the property recorded under Khata No.965 situated at Mouza Samanga, Tahasil-Puri measuring an area of Ac.8.92 decs. The land was recorded in the name of Sri Goura Gopala Jew Bijaya Nija Gruha. After initiation of consolidation proceeding, the same was recorded in Khata No.1016 in stitiban status in favour of the complainant, his brothers and sisters.

3. Petitioner no.1-Singhari Brajabandhu Kar filed a revision under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for brevity) and prayed that the land be recorded in his name on the basis of the registered deed executed by the father of the complainant-opposite party no.2. The case was remanded to the court of Addl. Sub-Collector by the learned Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar. On 4.12.2007 learned Addl. Sub-Collector issued notices to the parties fixing 26.12.2007 for hearing. But the complainant and his brothers and sisters did not receive any court notice in the said proceeding and on 26.12.2007, as per the report of the Process Server, learned Addl. Sub-Collector reflected in the order sheet that notice has been duly served on the opposite party. It is the case of the opposite party that he and his siblings are residing in different places and nobody is staying in the addresses mentioned in the case record, i.e. at Baseli Sahi, Puri. So the endorsement of process server regarding service of notice was false and concocted and in collusion with the accused persons including petitioner nos.1 and 2.

4. Again notices were issued fixing the date of hearing on 9.3.2009 and again the process severer namely, Shankar Swain made endorsement that notices were served upon the complainant and his siblings, but they denied to receive the notices. It is seen that the notices were allegedly served in presence of accused 4 and 5 who appear as witnesses to the summons. It is further alleged that a false Amin Report was prepared by accused no.2 stating therein that accused no.1 is in possession of the land in question. Therefore, the complainant approached the learned S.D.J.M. to forward the complaint petition to the I.I.C. Town P.S., Puri under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” for brevity) for registration of the case and investigation of the same. Upon receipt of such complaint, the I.I.C. registered a case and directed the Investigating Officer to investigate into the case and to take appropriate action. The investigation of the case has been completed. The I.O. has filed charge sheet against the accused persons. In the mean time application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners was rejected by this Court. Thereafter cognizance was taken. The order of taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process against the petitioners are challenged in this case.

5. In the application under Section 482 of the Code, the petitioners have originally taken the ground that offence is not made out on the facts of the case and that there is a question of double jeopardy and one case has already been registered against some persons in the alleged murder, which was taken place twenty-five years back on the allegation that by impersonation the petitioners have forged the lease deed in their favour by