By the Court.—This petition has been filed for a direction upon the Registrar appointed under The Registration Act, 1908 (the Registration Act) to decide the application dated 18 April 2016 filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (1973 Cr.P.C.) in proceedings that had been initiated under Sections 40/41 of the Registration Act by respondent No. 3-Irshad Ahmad against Shamshad and others for registration of a Will deed.

2. It is stated that Irshad Ahmad produced a Will deed dated 4 June 1996 before the Registrar on 20 March 2013 for its registration. This Will deed was registered on 1 May 2013. It is also stated that Irshad Ahmad had in the course of the proceedings produced a letter dated 14 March 2014 said to have been issued by the consulate at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. The petitioner alleges that the said letter is a forged document. It is for this reason that the application was filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of 1973 Cr.P.C. before the Registrar for taking appropriate action.

3. Ms. Meenakshi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has raised a preliminary objection that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of the 1973 Cr.P.C would not be maintainable before the Registrar as proceedings before him are not proceedings before a ‘Court’. In support of this contention learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Keshab Narayan Banerjee and others v. State of Bihar, (2000) 1 SCC 607. The submission is Section 340 of 1973 Cr.P.C. provides that ‘Court’ would have the same meaning as in Section 195 and that the definition of ‘Court’ in Section 195 admits of no doubt that a Registrar would not be a ‘Court’.

4. Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Kotta Atchayya and another v. Devarasetti Gangayya, (1892) 2 MLJ 64 and the judgment of Patna High Court in Jamil Akhtar Javed v. State of Bihar, Laws (PAT)-1998-8-44/PATLJR-1999-2-540, to support the contention that the application filed before the Registrar would be maintainable as proceedings before him under Section 40/41 of the Registration Act would be proceedings before the Court.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

In order to appreciate the rival contentions addressed on behalf of the parties, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 340 of 1973 Cr.P.C. because the application is said to have been filed by the petitioner under the aforesaid section and it is as follows :

“Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195.—Section 340. (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the 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) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient 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, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

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

(2) ...........

(3) ............

(4) In this section,”Court” has the same meaning as in Section 195.”

6. Sub-section (1) of Section 340 clearly stipulates that if any “Court” is of the opinion that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 (1) which ap