The court clarified that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. limits cognizance of forgery only if it occurs after the document has been submitted in court.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Tirmizi on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP Ms.Mehta on behalf of the respondent State and learned Advocate Mr.P.D. Bhate on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2.

2. learned 5thAdditional Sessions Judge, Kheda, Nadiad dated 13.6.2013, in Revision Application No.19 of 2013, whereby the learned Sessions Court had been pleased to set aside an order dated 19.1.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Mahudha, in Court Inquiry No.2/2012, whereby process had been issued against the respondents No.1 and 2 herein for offences punishable under Sections 181, 193, 196, 199, 200, 209 and 471 read with Section 114 of IPC.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition being that the respondents No.1 and 2 had preferred a Suit before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mahudha being Regular Suit No.5/2012 inter alia challenging a registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2010, by the Defendant No.1 therein in favour of Defendant No.2 therein. The petitioner herein had in connection with the said Suit preferred a complaint being Court Inquiry No.2 of 2012 before the learned JMFC, Mahudha inter alia alleging that the plaintiffs in the Regular Suit i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 herein had caused to prepare a false affidavit showing a pedigree chart dated 14.12.2011, whereby the mother of the petitioner herein, who was named as Divaben instead of her correct name as Babuben, was shown as having died and the petitioner herein, in spite of the fact that he was alive, was also shown as being deceased. Learned JMFC had, initially after verification of the complainant, postponed issuance of process and directed the Investigating Officer to investigate into the allegations and Officer had submitted his report, order dated 19.1.2013 had been passed by the learned JMFC, Mahudha, issuing process against the respondents No.1 and 2 herein, which was impugned before the learned Sessions Court by way of Revision Application No.19/2013. The respondents No.1 and 2 by way of the Revision Application had inter alia raised two principal grounds before the learned Revisional Court, being that the complaint itself was delayed and whereas emphasis was laid on Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C., whereby it is inter alia stated that for the offences against public justice etc., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471 of the 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, if the complaint in question is not in writing by the public servant concerned or some other public servant, who is subordinate to the public servant before whom the offence alleged is committed. It was the contention of the respondents No.1 and 2 before the learned Sessions Court that since the complaint, was in the nature of a private complaint, therefore, learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the same and interference of the Revisional Court was sought for. The learned Revisional Court vide order impugned before this Court inter alia relying upon the decision of this Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Dalapatsing Mafasing & Ors., reported in 1993(2) GLR 1775 issuing process. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Revisional Court has preferred the present petition.

4. Learned Advocate Mr.Tirmizi on behalf of the petitioner has inter alia submitted that the bar of Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) would only be applicable, if the document produced or given in evidence is stated to be forged during Court proceedings. Learned Advocate Mr.Tirmizi would submit that in the instant case,