A court cannot send an application under Sections 340 and 195 of the CrPC to the police for registration of a case and investigation. The court must conduct a preliminary inquiry and, if necessary, make a complaint in writing to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.

1. The present petition has been filed by Paras Ram under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of first information report No. 962 dated 10-12-1991 registered at Police Station, City, Karnal, under Ss. 463, 467, 468, 471, 475 and 476, IPC along with all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this ease are that Narinder Verma son of Sat Pal Verma moved an application under S. 340 and S. 195, Cr. P.C. in the Court of Mrs. Jayshree Aggarwal, Sub Judge IInd Class, Karnal in whose Court civil suit No. 195 of 1991, Paras Ram V/s. Joginder Pal and others was instituted. The applicant alleged that the civil suit was filed by Paras Ram against five persons out of whom four had expired long back and only Jai Pal was alive. No summons were issued to Jai Pal. In order to keep all the proceedings secret Paras Ram with the help and collaboration of some active legal experts procured the presence of defendants by impersonating all of them. Their signatures were manipulated on the Wakalatnama and an ex parte decree was obtained subsequently. Paras Ram committed forgery and practised fraud upon the Court and, tried to garb property worth lacs of rupees. It was, thus, expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into the commission of the offence in relation to the proceedings in the Court and forgery of the documents produced and given in evidence in the Court. It was further prayed that the identity of the persons who fabricated the signatures of the defendants who had expired could not be ascertained except by the investigation made by the police and so preliminary enquiry may be got made through the police. This application was sent by the Court to Police Station, City, Karnal and Sub Inspector Maha Singh registered the case on the basis of the same.

3. The petitioner alleged that he filed a civil suit against Joginder Pal, Dharam Pal, Jas Pal, Jai Pal and Prem Pal to whom the summons were duly issued. A poer of attorney was filed on their behalf by their counsel in Court on 13-2-1991. The case was then fixed for filing of written statement but none appeared and the defendants were, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. The suit was finally decreed on 18-3-1991. Narinder Verma complainant who is the legal representative of one of the defendants in the civil suit filed an application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18-3-1991 on the ground that all the defendants in the civil suit except Jai Pal had expired prior to the filing of the suit. He also moved an application under S. 340 and 195, Cr. P.C. in the Court on the basis of which case was got registered but the FIR was liable to be quashed as under S. 340 or S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was only the competent Court that could take cognizance of such an application. On receipt of the application only course open to the Courts was to make enquiry into the offence alleged to have been committed and if any offence was found to have been committed, then to make a complaint thereof in writing to a Magistrate of Ist Class having jurisdiction. Police had no power in regard to offences falling under S. 195, Cr. P.C. By sending the application to the police, the Court had committed a gross illegality.

4. In the return filed by the State it was alleged that the case was registered on the basis of complaint made by Narinder Pal Verma, which was sent by the Court to the Station House Officer, Police Station, City Karnal and investigation in the case was being done. Narinder Kumar Verma also filed a reply to the petition alleging that no summons were ever served on any of the defendants in the civil suits and the petitioner managed to procure the presence of the defendants by impersonating all of them.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that an application moved by respondent No. 2 under S. 340 and