IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.79913-M of 2006 Date of decision: 7th April, 2010 Mrs.Sushil Bhatia … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of an FIR No.269 dated 09.06.2006 (Annexure P-3) registered at Police Station Central Faridabad under Sections 188, 193 and 420 IPC. In the present case, FIR has been lodged by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Faridabad, in which it has been stated that a Civil Suit No.198 RBT of 1997/2005 titled ‘MDES and another v. S.P. Chaudhary’ was pending for arguments in the Court of the complainant Judge for 15th April, 2006. On that day, the petitioner Mrs.Sushil Bhatia, counsel for the plaintiff, appeared and made a request to inspect the file for the purpose of arguments. This case pertained to the year 1997 and was one of the oldest cases. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary adjournment, the Presiding Officer had sent the file to the Criminal Misc. No.79913-M of 2006 Civil Ahlmad and after one hour the petitioner, counsel for the plaintiff, commenced her arguments and relied upon the site plan Ex.P4. The Court observed that some tampering of the site plan had been committed by the petitioner after the file was sent for inspection. The petitioner, counsel for the plaintiff, also produced rough papers on which she had calculated the area. On the observation made by the Presiding Officer as to how the tampering had been committed, counsel for the plaintiff stated that she was ready to delete all the measurements written by her. Counsel for the petitioner had stated that for launching prosecution under Section 193 IPC, a complaint was to be instituted by the Court, as Section 195(b)(1) Cr.P.C. specifically states that no Court can take cognizance of the offence, except for a complaint in writing. It is further submitted that no inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was held and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead her evidence and to show cause to the Presiding Officer/complainant Court that no offence was committed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Even if, the FIR can be lodged, but no cognizance can be taken unless a complaint is filed by the aggrieved Court. This view is supported by ‘State of Punjab v. Raj Singh’ AIR 1998 SC 768 : 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) SC 576. Furthermore, it is necessary that an inquiry ought to have been held under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to show that no offence had been committed by her. In the inquiry, petitioner could lead evidence to this effect. It was held in ‘M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana’ 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 718 that the Court has to send a complaint to the competent Court having jurisdiction by adopting the procedure under Section 195, 340 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in the present case, record was 2 Criminal Misc. No.79913-M of 2006 fabricated in the premises of the Court. Even if an inspection is held in the ante room, where the Ahlmad is sitting, it is fabrication of the record while the documents were in custody of the Court. Therefore, only complaint will lie after an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is held. Furthermore, the petitioner has also got a remedy to file an appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, without quashing the FIR, this Court remands the matter back to the Complainant Court to hold an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and proceed further with the same in accordance with provisions of law. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 7, 2010 rps 3