IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.747 of 2005 PRAHLAD THAKUR & ORS Versus MOSTT. CHAMPA DEVI & ANR ----------- 8 20.04.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The instant application has been directed against the order dated 16.7.2005 passed by the SDJM, Muzaffarpur, whereby cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 420, 120(B), 471, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the accused persons stated that the land in question belongs to them and in support of the same they produced a copy of the order passed in the consolidation proceeding. The police after investigation submitted final report finding the case to be a civil dispute. Thereafter the complainant filed protest petition also. The learned Magistrate in view of the materials in the case took cognizance under Sections 420, 120B, 471, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that cognizance under Sections 420, 120B, 471, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, is bad in law as in view of Section 195(1) (b) (ii) only a court could have filed a complaint in respect of Section 471 of the IPC. In order to appreciate the issue Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- 195(1) No Court shall take cognizance – (b) (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under Section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said - 2 - 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.” As per the aforesaid provision no court would be competent to take cognizance unless the complaint is made by court in respect of the offence as provided in Section 195(1) (b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. The aforesaid provision has been elaborately explained in the case of Sachidanand Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1998(3) PLJR 13 Supreme Court. While explaining the aforesaid provision the Apex Court held that the above discussion contained in Sub-section 2 is not applicable in a case were forgery of document is committed before the document is presented in the court. In other words Section 195(1) (b) (ii) would be applicable only in cases were forgery is committed in document which has already been produced in the court. Thus the contention of learned counsel that the complaint is based under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is misconceived and as such order taking cognizance is not bad in law. However, it would be open to petitioner to contend that the documents are genuine and not forged. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)