IMPORTANT POINT
When a copy of original document is produced & a private complaint is laid on basis of copy of forged agreement then bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted.

ORDER

Question of law referred to this Bench is : whether the criminal Court is debarred from proceeding with the private complaint laid against the appellants on June 13, 1983 for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC )? The respondent had laid the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B, IPC with the allegations that the appellants had conspired and fabricated an agreement dated July 26, 1978 and forged the signature of Smt. Dalip Kaur and on the basis thereof they attempted to claim retention of the possession of the remaining part of the house. The Magistrate, Amritsar had examined witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code ) and ordered issue of process summoning the appellants to appear on September 27, 1983. It would appear that the appellants filed civil suit for an injunction to restrain Dalip Kaur from interfering with the possession of appellants 1 to 3 and he produced the agreement dated 21-2-1984 which was said to have been executed and signed by Dalip Kaur. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application to quash the complaint on the ground of bar under Section 195 of the Code. The Magistrate and on revision the Sessions Judge dismissed the same. When the revision was filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, on a question of law ultimately the matter was referred to Full Bench which had answered the question against the appellants and remitted the matter to the referring Judge. The learned single Judge in the impugned order dated August 4, 1986 has dismissed the revision. Thus this appeal by special leave.

2. The only question is : whether the Magistrate, 1st class at Amritsar is devoid of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Shri Markandaya, learned counsel for the appellants placing strong reliance on the judgments of this Court in Gopal Krishna Menon & Anr. v. D. Raja Reddy & Anr.1 and Patel Laljibhai and Somabhai v. State of Gujarat2 contended that once the document has been produced before the Court, it is the civil Court that has seisin of the matter. It alone or an officer on its behalf has to lay the complaint in writing. The private complaint laid by the respondent is not maintainable. The criminal Court, therefore, cannot proceed with the trial. With a view to appreciate the contention it is necessary to reiterate the scope of Section 195 of the Code which creates an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence.

3. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) reads that no court shall take cognizance "of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 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".

4. This Court in Budhu Ram v. State of Rajasthan3 considered the scope of Section 195 and held thus :

"It will be seen on a plain grammatical construction of this provision that a complaint by the court is required where the offence is of forging or of using as genuine any document which is known or believed to be a forged document when such document is produced or given in evidence in court. It is clear therefore that it is only when the forged document is produced in Court that a complaint by the Court is required. Where, however, what is produced before the court is not the forged document itself, Section 195(1)(c) will not apply on its terms. The reason for this, as stated by the Judicial Committee, is the practical common sense of the matter, for the court before which a copy of a document is produced is not really in a position to express any opinion on the genuineness of the original . Therefore, even if the Assistant Settlement Officer is assumed to be a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(c) no complaint was necessary because the forged document itself was not produced before the Assistant Set