IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1457 of 2001 Date of decision: September 30, 2010 Harbans Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. Amar Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. P.S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Narinder Singh Lucky, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J In an execution filed by Amar Singh, the respondent allegedly produced a compromise dated 27.3.1992 and raised the objections stating that the matter has been compromised. However, the Executing Court dismissed the objection petition while giving clear cut findings that compromise dated 27.3.1992 was not genuine. The trial court issued a notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, and it ultimately dismissed the application with the observations that it had no jurisdiction to file the complaint. Amar Singh petitioner (now respondent) filed a revision petition against the said order dated 3.9.1998 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, which was allowed vide order dated 24.8.2001 which is now under challenge before this Court. Admittedly, the alleged compromise was not forged while in the custody of the court as such the court had no jurisdiction to lodge a criminal complaint against the person who had forged the compromise in view of the clear cut bar created by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of Cr.P.C. The Full Bench of the Apex Court dealt with the matter elaborately in case Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 178 and after discussing the whole of the law observed as under :- “25. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided Criminal Revision No. 1457 of 2001 -2- and the view taken therein is the correct view. 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 has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.” 26. In the present case, the will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody's case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) was committed in respect to the said will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power to the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.” In the present case, the document was not touched when it was in the custody of the court and the allegations are levelled that the forged document was produced in the court, as such, bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. is attracted. Resultantly, this revision petition is accepted, impugned order dated 24.8.2001 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. September 30, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge