IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16129 of 1998 AMRENDU BHUSHAN JHA @ AMRENDRA BHUSHAN JHA SON OF DR. D.N. JHA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BAHADURPUR, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR………….. ………………………………………….PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR……………………………….. OPP. PARTY ----------- 6 11-3-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. of Samastipur (Town ) P.S. Case No. 311 dated 22-7-1998 on the ground that such a case under sections 466,467,468,471,420,120 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code can be lodged only by the Civil Court where document in question in respect of which allegations of forgery etc. have been made , has been filed in connection with Title Suit No. 14 of 1991 which was at the relevant time pending before Sub-Judge-I, Samastipur. No doubt Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure particularly Sub-section 1 (b)(ii) create a bar upon taking cognizance of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471,475 or 476 of the I.P.C. except on the complaint in writing of that court or by some authorized officer or a superior court but this bar contemplates that the document in question has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court and such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of such document. The aforesaid provision when read conjointly with section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes the matter more clear and there can be no doubt that if the offence alleged was committed in respect of a 2 document which at the relevant time was not produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court then cognizance of such offence is not barred. In the present case reading of the F.I.R. lodged by the Circle Officer, Samastipur discloses that the document in question is alleged to have been forged and the document was fraudulent at the very initial stage and there is no allegation of any offence being committed in respect of such document while it was lying admitted in a court of law. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the bar of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply. It is further notable in this case that the bar under section 195 Cr.P.C. does not apply to power of the police to investigate and cause of action could have arisen in appropriate case only if the investigation had gone against the accused persons leading to order of cognizance. Considering all the circumstances it is found that there is no good reason to interfere with the power of the police to investigate the offence in question disclosed through an F.I.R. So far as other defence of the petitioner on the credibility of allegations is concerned, that can be considered either by the police or by the concerned court only at an appropriate stage. With this observation this application is dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)