IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2582 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2582 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2582 OF 2007 Natwarsingh Ramsingh Chauhan.... Applicant versus Ganpatsinh Chitusinh Chauhan...... Respondent. Shri. C.K.Kothari for the applicant. Shri D.A.Nalawade for Respondent no.2 Shri D.R.More App for state. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The Magistrate has directed investigation to be made in a complaint filed by the respondent against the present applicant for commission of offence under sections 420, 466, 471 and 193 of IPC. The learned counsel for the applicant initially tried to contend that as forged documents were filed in the proceedings in civil suit, the Magistrate cannot entertain the complaint unless and until Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is complied with. The said submission is ill-founded. If documents, which are allegedly forged prior to their filing in the proceeding in the court, section 195 has no application. The learned counsel then submits that atleast to the extent of section 193, the bar of section 195 would apply. The submission appears to be primafacie correct. However, as of now only a investigation under section 156(3) has been directed, I do not propose to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Hence application is rejected. ...