HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3630 OF 2002 DATE:08-07-2010 BETWEEN Kasampudi Satyanarayana …Petitioner AND State of A.P. Rep. by S.I. of Police, Law and Order, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada Rep. by P.P. High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3630 OF 2002 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.547 of 1997 pending on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada which was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is that he forged a document and filed the same as partition list, dated 12.8.1980 under document No.9826 of 1980 of the office of Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada along with the counter in I.A.No.105 of 1996 in O.S.No.66 of 1996. In view of the said allegation, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the same cannot be taken cognizance by the Criminal Court on the basis of private complaint and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. The Supreme Court in K.Vengadachalam v. K.C.Palanisamy[1] after following its earlier decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another v. Meenakshi Marwah and Another[2] categorically held that the protection engrafted under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it had been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. In view of the said legal position, I do not see merit to quash the impugned proceedings. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 08, 2010 Tsr. [1] 2005 SCC (Cri) 1673 [2] 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101