The High Court has jurisdiction to lodge a complaint against a person for forgery of a judicial order produced before the Consolidation Officer and the High Court in the writ proceedings, even though the Consolidation Authorities are not declared as courts under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC.

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar, Allahabad High Court on 31. 9. 89 against the petitioner. Under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 420, 465, 468 and 471, IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad registered as Criminal Case No. 7893 of 1989 in the Court of the C. J. M. , Allahabad and the summoning order dated 4-8-89 passed by the C. J. M. , Allahabad in the aforesaid complaint case and for quashing the order dated 25-7-90 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1990 Ram Jatan v. Deputy Registrar, High Court, Allahabad.

2. The facts necessary for the proper appreciation of the controversy involved in this Writ Petition are stated as follows:

According to the petitioners case, he had filed case No. 10/137 against one Mahadeo and others in the Court of Consolidation Officer in which an order dated 28-11-75 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Handia, Allahabad mutating his name in respect of the Khata Nos. 86,89 and 100 of Village Usmanpur, Pargana Kaha Tahsil, Handia, Allahabad. On 15-7-86 the petitioner moved an application under Section 52 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for giving effect to the order dated 28-11- 75 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Handia, Allahabad in his case No. 10/137. The Consolidation Officer allowed this application ex parte on 6-9-86. As soon as the opposite parties came to know about this order, they moved an application on 18-9- 86 before the Consolidation Officer, Handia for setting aside the ex parte order dated 6-9-86 on the ground that it was based on a forged order. The consolidation Officer held an inquiry and after hearing allowed the application of the opposite parties on 19-9-86 and set aside the ex parte order dated 6-9-86 by holding that the order dated 28-11-75 was a forged one. Against this order, the petitioner filed an application before the Consolidation Officer on 29- 9-86 for recalling the order dated 19-9-86 but the Consolidation Officer was pleased to reject this petition on 17-10-1986. This order has become final as it was not challenged before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation or the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, against the same order dated 19-9-86 the petitioner also filed simultaneously a Revision No. 11 of 1987 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who was pleased to set aside the ex parte order dated 19-9-86 and remanded the case by his order dated 24-12-87 to the Consolidation Officer to decide it afresh. Thereupon, the Consolidation Officer decided the same on 27-6-88. Thereafter the petitioner filed a Revision No. 443 of 1988 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad challenging the orders dated 27-6-88 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 179 of 1986 under Section 52 (2), C. H. Act. This revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 23-9-88. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 1182 of 1988 in this Court challenging the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolida tion and the Consolidation Officer. This Writ Petition was heard and dismissed after hearing the parties by Honble Mr. Justice M. P. Singh of this Court on August 10, 1988. Thereafter a Review Petition No. 17627 of 1988 was also filed by the petitioner against the order and judgment dated 10-8-88 rendered by Honble M. P. Singh, J. But this review petition was summarily rejected.

3. The opposite party Bindeshwari Prasad, Harishanker and Om Prakash filed an application in this Court on 8-5-89 praying that this Court be pleased to file a criminal complaint against Ram Jatan petitioner for his criminal act in forging the order dated 28-11-75 which he filed as evidence before the Consolidation Officer. On the basis of this application the Deputy Registrar of this Court dealing with such complaints examined