Shri Narayan Shukla, J.

Heard Mr. Sri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad, whereby the petitioner's application moved under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been rejected on the ground that it is a matter of forged document, which is submitted before the revenue court, therefore, it is the revenue court, which is competent enough to take action in the matter.

3. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad being criminal revision no. 157 of 2010 which has been rejected by means of order dated 6.12.2010.

4. Upon perusal of the documents, the facts of the case are very much obvious that the alleged forgery in preparation of khatauni was committed in the record office, Faizabad. The beneficiary produced the said alleged khatauni before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haveli , Faizabad to get the benefit of that. The khatauni being forged one, the petitioner (complainant) moved an application before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haveli, Faizabad raising objection with the prayer not to give him any benefit of the said forged document and also moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad under Section 156(3) of the Code to lodge the First Information Report against him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the same on the ground that the competent court to deal with such matter is that very court; where the other side has moved an application to get the benefit of the said document, which has been rejected. The revisional court also upheld the said order.

5. The question for consideration is who is competent to move the complaint in such a case and which court is competent to entertain the same?

Section 195 (1) (a) (i) and (b) (ii) of the Code governs such cases, which is extracted below:-

"Section 195 (1)............................

(a)(i):- of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

6. Section 195 (1)(b)(i) .........................

(b) (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 evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or."

Section 340 of the Code provides the procedure to cover the cases mentioned in Section 195 of the Code, which is extracted below:-

"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. ? (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, ?

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) sent it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficing security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, sent the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complai