The provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(i) (ii) and (iii) read with Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code bar the taking of cognizance of offenses relating to forgery, impersonation, and giving false evidence committed in court proceedings, except on the complaint of the court where the offenses were committed. By necessary implication, the investigation into such offenses is also barred.

1. Sardul Singh has filed this petition u/ S. 482 of the Criminal P.C. 1973, for quashing the first information report No. 293, dt. 12-9-1988, for offences u/ Ss. 205, 209, 420, 467, 468, 506 and 471 read with S. 120-B of the I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar, inter alia, on the ground that the taking of cognizance for the above referred offences by the Court is specifically barred by the provisions of S. 195, sub-sec. (1)(b)(i) (ii) and (iii) read with S. 340 of the Criminal P.C. and that by necessary implication, the investigation into such offences is also barred.

2. The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that on the application of Mst. Gurnam Kaur, complainant, the above said case was registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar. In that application, Mst. Gurnam Kaur had averred that she is the owner of the land measuring 98 Kanals 8 Marlas located in the revenue estate of village Beer Babran and has also constructed a house thereon. She has further averred that Sardul Singh accused entered into conspiracy with fourteen other persons, fully described therein, to usurp the land and in pursuance of the same, obtained a decree dt. 9-6-1988 from the Court of Shri S. P. Sharma, Sub Judge IInd Class, Hisar, by producing some other lady impersonating as Gurnam Kaur. The lady who had impersonated as Gurnam Kaur filed a written-statement and also made a statement in the Court admitting the claim of the accused-plaintiff regarding ownership over the land in dispute in favour of Sardul Singh, petitioner, as well as Baldev Singh, Joginder Singh and Shehanshah Singh. It is further alleged that Mst. Gurnam Kaur had entered into an agreement to sell this land to Bhalla Ram and Tek Chand but after the death of the latter, none of the heirs of Tek Chand and Bhalla Ram came to get the sale deed executed and thus the said agreement to sell was cancelled as per its terms. Regarding this agreement, civil suits are pending in the civil Court between the applicant and Bhalla Ram and hairs of Tek Chand deceased. Thus it is maintained that these persons had entered into conspiracy to play fraud upon the complainant for usurping the land. It is also maintained that the complainant is still in possession of the land and got an interim stay order from the civil Court restraining the accused in this case from disturbing her possession over the land in dispute.

3. In the return filed by the respondent-State, it is stated that it is a clear case of playing fraud upon Gurnam Kaur as the accused had produced some other lady instead of Gurnam Kaur before the civil Court and got a decree in their favour. It is further stressed that the report of the Hand-writing Expert clearly shows that the signatures of Gurnam Kaur, complainant, do not tally with the signatures figuring on the written-statement and Vakalatnama filed by the lady impersonating as such in the above referred civil suit.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

5. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the written statement was filed by a lady allegedly impersonating as Gurnam Kaur admitting the claim of Sardul Singh and other plaintiffs regarding the ownership of the land in dispute before the Court of Sub Judge IInd Class, Hisar. The matter does not rest here as aforesaid lady who had allegedly impersonated as Gurnam Kaur had also made a statement in that civil Court admitting the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit. Thus under these circumstances, there is absolutely no doubt that the offence of impersonation, forgery and giving a false evidence etc. punishable u/ Ss. 205, 209, 468 and 469 of the Penal Code were committed in the civil Court itself. The provisions of S. 195(1)(b)(i) (ii) of the Criminal P.C. 1973, read as under:

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.- (1) No Court sha