The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the bar contained under Section 195(1)(b)(II) of the CrPC in cases of alleged forgery.

Mukhtar Ahmad, J.

This is an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC') requesting the court to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner Rajesh Manchanda for filing the copy of the criminal complaint Smt. Krishna Manchanda v. Ashok Manchanda and others under section 392/452/506/34 by committing the forgery and changing the date of its filing in the concerning court.

2. Before the rival contentions of the parties are taken up for consideration, it would be necessary to give a brief resume of facts. There is no dispute that Rajesh Manchanda and Ashok Manchanda are real brothers and Smt. Krishna Manchanda is their Mother. Ashok Manchanda filed a complaint no. 4889 of 2008 under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against Rajesh Manchanda in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Gautom Buddh Nagar on 4.6.2000. After recording statements under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. accused Rajesh Manchanda was summoned vide order dated 23.6.2008 for facing the trial.

3. Thereafter Rajesh Manchanda came before this court and filed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C numbered as 22554 of 2009 with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 4889 of 2008 pending before the C.J.M. Gautam Buddh Nagar. Further proceedings of the case were also prayed to be stayed till further orders. Along with that application a copy of criminal complaint dated 3.5.2008 filed by Smt. 2 Krishna Manchanda against Ashok Kumar and unknown persons under section 392/452/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code was also filed. Vide order dated 6.1.2010 the coordinate bench of this court was pleased to pass the following order :

"This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding pending before CJM in complaint case no. 4989 of 2008 in between Ashok Manchanda v. Rajesh Manchanda, under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Sector 20 Noida, District-Ghautam Budh Nagar.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant and opposite party no. 2 is real brother. The applicant was residing outside. Hence he gave signed blank cheques to his mother for necessary expenses. Opposite party no. 2 had stolen certain articles including the blank cheque regarding which the complaint was filed by mother, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi on 3.5.2008. Thereafter, in counter blast on the basis of false allegation, the complaint was lodged under the Negotiable Instrument Act. Since there was no liability of any debt and even if could have been dispute regarding parties. The suit have been filed by the parties by opposite party no. 2. Hence on this ground, the complaint was not maintainable. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

Till the next date of listing, further proceeding in complaint case no. 4989 of 2008 in between Ashok Manchanda v. Rajesh Manchanda, under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S.Sector 20 Noida, District-Ghautam Budh Nagar, shall remain stayed. List on 3rd February, 2009, before a regular court."

4. Ashok Manchanda put his appearance and after exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 25.5.2012 observing that there were certain disputed question of facts, which can not be adjudicated in the proceedings under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure and can only be considered and decided by the trial court concerned.

5. It also reveals that this application under section 340 Cr.P.C. was filed by Rajesh Manchanda on 25.11.2011 with the prayer as stated above.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record available before me.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged criminal complaint by Smt. Krishna Manchanda against Ashok Manchana and u