The provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are limited to offences committed in regard to a document produced or given in evidence in proceedings before a court, while the document is in the custody of the court. Offences committed prior to the institution of the suit or proceedings are not covered by this provision.

N.K. Agrawal, J. - This is a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Code) by 4 persons who, along with 6 others, are facing trial under Sections 218, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code (for short, the Indian Penal Code), in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Kurukshetra.

2. Two civil suits (Nos. 379 and 380 of 1986) were filed by Smt. Banto (petitioner No. 3 herein) on February 8, 1985, seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff, Smt. Banto, had averred in her plaints in both the suits, that Smt. Sardari was the owner of certain land and that Smt. Sardari had executed a Will in her favour on June, 25, 1964 regarding her estate in village Fatehgarh. The plaintiff claimed to have become the owner of the suit land on the basis of that Will. She claimed that, after the death of Smt. Sardari, she was in possession of the suit land. Mutation was, however, wrongly sanctioned in favour of the defendants by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Radaur, on July 21, 1984 though mutation had already been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on December 26, 1983, on the basis of the Will. The plaintiff prayed that she may be declared to be the owner-in- possession of the land and the subsequent sanction of mutation be declared null and void. Both the suits were consolidated and tried together and were decided by a common judgment and decree dated September 10, 1987 (Annexure P- 3). The learned Sub Judge did not rely upon the Will which was produced and was the subject-matter in the suits. The suits were dismissed with the following observations :-

"If in fact such Will was ever executed by her, she should have made the mention as to why she was depriving her real sons and daughters. I do admit that the Will being registered and un-registered does not make any difference if the same has been executed by the executant out of her or his free will and beyond suspicious circumstances, but in the present case, the circumstances in which the alleged Will was executed by Smt. Sardari are suspicious one. Therefore, I am of the considered view that she never executed any Will in her life time and the alleged Will might have been forged by the plaintiff with the connivance of the attesting witnesses, its scribe and Kali Ram. Hence I decide this issue against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants and this Will has no effect on the rights of the defendants."

3. An F.I.R. (No. 200 dated 16.12.1988) was lodged by Jai Ram (who was defendant No. 4 in the aforesaid civil suits) at P.S. Ladwa, District Kurukshetra with the allegation that the persons named therein had forged and fabricated the Will dated June 25, 1964 in favour of Smt. Banto wife of Baru Ram (plaintiff in the Civil suits) regarding the property of Smt. Sardari. The police, after investigation, filed a challan in the Court. The Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Kurukshetra, by his order dated July 20, 1991 (Annexure P-2) ordered that charges shall be framed against the 10 accused persons (including the 4 petitioners herein) under Sections 218, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the prosecution of the petitioners with the plea that in the absence of a complaint in writing by the Civil Court under sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code, prosecution was invalid. Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code 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 shall take cognizance -

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) (i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any crimina