The bar created by section 195 of Cr.P.C. applies only when the offence is committed in respect of documents produced before the court, which are in custodia legis.

Alok Verma, J.

1. This application is filed under Section 482 r.w.s. 340 of Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings against respondent No.1 for producing forged document before this court.

2. The relevant facts are that wife of applicant Bhawna purchased a house situated at 8 Jail Road, New 24, Devi Ahilya Road, Indore from heirs of late Bhikaji Sharma on 01.12.2010. Thereafter, respondent No.1 on the basis of forged documents also registered a sale deed in respect of some property.

3. Respondent No.1 filed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings against him under section 482 Cr.P.C. which was registered as M. Cr. C. 1968/2014. This application was withdrawn by respondent No.1 and the court while allowing withdrawal of the application observed as under:-

"Learned counsel for the applicant has sought permission to withdraw the M. Cr. C.

Shri A.S. Kutumble, learned counsel for the objector has submitted that since the objector's application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is pending in this case, therefore, withdrawal of the M. Cr. C. will affect the right of the objector to prosecute the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.

Considering the aforesaid submissions, the applicant is permitted to withdraw the M. Cr. C. and the objector is granted liberty to file separate case under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Since the allegations are in respect of certain affidavits and documents filed in this M. Cr. C. therefore, office is directed to preserve the record of the M. Cr. C. for future proceedings."

4. Accordingly, after availing the liberty granted by this court to the applicant, this application is filed praying that forged documents were produced by respondent No.1, and therefore, necessary action should be taken against respondent No.1 under section 340 r.w.s. 195 (1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C.

5. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 opposes the prayer vehemently.

6. Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that no case is made out.

7. Counsel for the applicant places reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah, 2005 Cr.L.J. 2160. From the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is apparent that sections 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C. do not create any independent offence but only prescribe procedure when offence is committed against the documents which were produced before the court and which were in custodia legis. The court observed in Para-6 of the judgment as under:-

"6. On a plain reading clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 is capable of two interpretations. One possible interpretation is that when an offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 IPC is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document which is subsequently produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any necessary. The other possible interpretation is that when a document has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court and thereafter an offence described as aforesaid is committed in respect thereof, a complaint by the Court would be necessary. On this interpretation if the offence as described in the Section is committed prior to production or giving in evidence of the document in Court, no complaint by Court would be necessary and a private complaint would be maintainable. The question which requires consideration is which of the two interpretations should be accepted having regard to the scheme of the Act and object sought to be achieved."

8. The court further observed in paras-20 and 25 as under:-

"20. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1) (b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh, after preparing forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manager to get a proceeding instituted i