The competency of the court to take cognizance of offences of forgery under Section 120-A/463/467, Indian Penal Code is determined by the court in which the alleged forged document was produced, as per Section 195(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 1.12.1984, passed by the JMIC, Jagadhri, who dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 120-A/120-B/468, Indian Penal Code, by holding that the Court was not competent to take cognizance of the commission of the present type of offence except on a complaint by the Court in which forgery has been allegedly committed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Paras Ram, father of the complainant Panni died about 40 years back before the institution of the present complaint. His widow Attari performed Karewa with one Surta who had gifted about 20 bighas of land and a house in her favour. Panni, complainant, is son of Attari from her first husband. Surta died on 2.7.1976, leaving behind Attari as his heir. It is alleged by the complainant that about 10/15 days of the death of Surta, the respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy to forge a will and an adoption deed. The respondents conspired that a document be prepared showing that Rameshwar, accused No. 2, had been adopted by Surta before his death and he also executed a will in favour of some of the respondents before his death. A stamp paper of Rs. 3/- was purchased on 17.7.1976 at the suggestion of accused-Krishan Lal Sawhney, petition writer. A draft was, thereafter, prepared. In this way, a will and an agreement to sell some property were scribed by Krishan Lal Sawhney and the same were got attested from other accused. It was made to appear that the will was executed by Surta on 2.10.1968 although it was, in fact, prepared about 15/16 days after the death of Surta on 2.7.1976. According to the complainant, Surta was dead at the time of the preparation of a false document. The will in fact, bore the thumb impression of some other persons unknown to the complainant but it was made to show that it bore thumb impression of Surta. It is further the case of the complainant that respondent. No. 2 filed a civil suit on 22.7.1976 claiming ownership and possession of the property left by Surta on the basis of the will and adoption deed. However, in mutation proceedings the land left by Surta was mutated in favour of Attari. A civil suit was, thereafter, filed to challenge the mutation. The will was accepted as a genuine document by Shri J.B. Sharma, the then Sub Just Ist Class, and the suit filed by Rameshwar Dass for possession of the land left by Surta was decreed. However, it was held that Attari was the lawful wife and widow of Surta. An appeal against that judgment was filed in the Court of the learned Distt. Judge, Ambala, and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision. It was further alleged that an agreement was later on forged to usurp the property left by Surta. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint on 15.6.1981 to the effect that the respondents had entered into a criminal complaint and forged the will and an agreement, therefore, they allegedly committed the offences under Section 120-A/463/467, Indian Penal Code.

3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate, Jagadhri, vide order dated 5.2.1983, summoned the accused under Sections 120-A/463/467, Indian Penal Code.

4. The respondents made an application that the complaint be dismissed under Section 245 r/2 195, Criminal Procedure Code It was alleged that the complaint with regard to any document alleged to be a forged document produced before a Civil Court was barred under the provisions of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code It was further alleged that a private complaint in respect of the said document was not maintainable for the alleged offence of forgery. it was further alleged that the Presiding Officer of the Civil Court in whose court the alleged forged document was produced and was found to be so, was authorised to file a complaint for forgery. It was further pleaded that as a civil suit was still pending and no finding has been returne