Ashok Kumar Verma, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceeding of Case No. 489 of 1997, including the order dated 22-12-1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case under Sections 466, 469 and 471 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons.
3. It was argued by the learned lawyer of the petitioners that the private complainant has filed the complaint petition in respect of alleged forgery committed in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria in a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr. P.C. and it has been alleged that on the basis of the forged service report of notice the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had ordered to issue warrant against the complainant and his sons. It was also submitted by him that it has been alleged that the accused persons had got the service of the notice done by committing forgery and that forgery has been defined in Section 463 I.P.C. and Sections 466 and 469 I.P.C. provide punishment for committing forgery. The learned lawyer for the petitioners submitted that according to Section 195 of the Cr. P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 471, 475 and 476 of I.P.C., 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, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate but in the present case the complaint petition has been filed by a private complainant and not by any Court. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and the A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State (Opposite Party No. 1) do not dispute these facts.
4. Admittedly, the complainant has filed the complaint petition in respect of a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr. P.C. pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria, bearing Case No. 490 M of 1997 alleging therein that service of notice on him and his sons was done by committing forgery and it was filed in the Court. The complaint petition had been filed by Ramdeo Yadav and not by the Court concerned. According to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the I.P.C., 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 or of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in Sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing or that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. According to Section 463 I.P.C. whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. According to Section 466 I.P.C. whoever forges a document, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage, or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. According to Section 469 I.P.C. whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
5. The learned lawyer for the petitioner submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Menon and Anr. v. D. Raja Reddy and Anr., reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1053, that once it is accepted that Section 463 defines forgery and Section 467, punishes forgery of a particular category, the provision in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code would immediately be attracted and on the basis that the offence punishable under Section 467 is an offence described in Section 463, in the absence of a complaint by the Court, the prosecution would not be maintainable.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 22-12-1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is not tenable in law. Therefore, it is quashed. This order will have no effect on the complaint if it is filed by the Court concerned.