IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 499 of 2009 H arish Chand Jain ...…………. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & five others. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for State. Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate, present for respondent No. 6. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 19.01.2009, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2008, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 19.06.2008, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, on Application No. 96 of 2008, moved under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Harish Chand Jain Vs. Shashi Bakshi and others. 2 3) Brief facts of the case are that one Jugal Kishor is said to be the owner of the property in question. Petitioner’s case is that he purchased the property through a sale deed dated 04.06.1970, executed by said Jugal Kishor. However, it appears that a civil suit was filed by respondents No. 2 to 6, claiming title over the property on the basis of adverse possession. The case of the present petitioner is that a forged Vakalatnama was used by the respondents No. 2 to 6, showing that the present petitioner was represented through a counsel. Copy of said document is annexed as Annexure –9 to the present petition. 4) An application was moved under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for registering a criminal case against respondents No. 2 to 6, in respect of said document. The trial court vide impugned order dated 19.06.2008, rejected the application on the ground that in respect of a document used in a proceedings in court, cognizance can only be taken on a complaint of a court or its nominee. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, who passed said order has specifically mentioned provision contained in Section 195(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which bars the cognizance otherwise then the procedure prescribed in said Section. 5) The revision was filed by the present petitioner before court of Sessions, which was disposed of vide 3 impugned order dated 19.01.2009, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court II, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2008, affirming the order passed by the Magistrate. 6) It is also observed by the revisional court that if the court concerned where the allegedly forged document was used has not made any complaint, it was open for the petitioner to file an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 7) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the provision contained in Section 195(1) and Section 340 of Cr.P.C., this court finds no illegality in the impugned orders, passed by the courts below. 8) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. July 08, 2011. H. Negi 4