The bar on taking cognizance under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code only applies to offenses committed during the pendency of the proceedings.

This petition has been filed under Section 482, Crpc for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 34 of 1980, under Sections 419, 463, 464, 465,468 and 471, IPC pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Phulpur, Azamgarh.

2. Opposite party No. 1 Kaddar filed a complaint against the appli cants under Section 419/463/464/465/468 and471, IPC with the allegations that the complainant is bhumidhar in possession of Chak No. 17, in area 603 karris, situate in village Sedhan Patti, P. S. Kandhapur, district Azamgarh. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the nephews of the complainant. In order to grab the property of the complainant accused No. 1 and 2 in collusion with accused Nos. 3 to 7 got a forged sale deed dated 26- 3-1976, executed in their favour through a person impersonating complainant. On the basis of that forged sale-deed accused Nos. 1 and 2 applied for muta tion of their names before the ACO under Section 12 of the U. P. Consoli dation of Holdings Act and used the said sale-deed, knowing it to be forged, as genuine and succeeded in obtaining ex parts order of mutation in their favour on 8-7-1976 but that order was set aside on appeal. The complainant further alleged that he never executed any sale-deed in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2 nor he ever applied for mutation. He never signed or thumb marked the alleged sale deed nor he appeared before the Sub-Registrar.

3. Learned Magistrate after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202, Crpc found a prima facie made out against the applicants and he accordingly summoned them. Act the time of framing of charges, the appli cants raised a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate that he was not competent to take cognizance of the offence in view of the bar enumerated in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Crpc. The Magistrate rejected that preliminary objection and passed order framing charges against the accused-applicants for the offence of forging sale-deed dated 26-3-1976. The applicants feeling aggrieved by order of learned Magistrate preferred Criminal Revision No. 125 of 1981 before the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. The learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision by order dated 5-1-1982 holding that the Magistrate was quite justified in coming to the conclusion that the cognizance on the complaint by learned Magistrate was not barred under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Crpc. The applicants have now come up to this Court against the order passed by the courts below.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The question that centers round this petition is as to whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences specified under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Crpc in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in the court. In the present case the alleged offences under Sections 419/463/464/465/468 and 471, Crpc were committed by the applicants by getting a forged sale-deed executed through person impersonating him as the complainant in order to cause damage to the complainant. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the alleged forged sale- deed was filed in the mutation proceedings and the mutation court alone was competent to take cognizance of the said offences. The Magistrate concerned was not competent to take cogni zance unless the complaint was filed by the court concerned where the docu ment was produced and given in evidence and since here no such complaint was filed by the ACO, therefore, the learned Magistrate had

no jurisdiction to take cognizance on the complaint of the opposite party. In support of the above contention the learned counsel for the applicants relied on a decision in Naksay Lal v. Kedar Singh, 1982 UP Crr 69.

5. I have given anxious thought to the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants. It is a case in which a forged document was prepared before the Sub-Registrar and it was filed before the mutation