R.K. Saxena, J. - (1.) A suit was filed by the first two petitioners Ishwar Das and Massey Das on the 27th of May 19.81 against Opp. party No. 1 Ram Dutta Gupta, and three others tor specific performance of agreement. The plaintiffs of the suit filed various documents including a receipt alleging that the same had been executed by the contesting (opposite-party No. 1) who after the service of the summons of the case and on coming to know that reliance has been placed by the plaintiffs of the suit on the said receipt, reported the matter at police station Sardar Bazar Agra in February 1982, asserting that the receipt has been forged by the plaintiffs of the suit. He claimed that it had not been executed by him. The investigation that follow resulted in the submission of a final report to the effect that prima facie no case was made out against these four petitioners who had been arrayed as accused in the report. On the request of the compla inant informant the Magistrate directed for further investigation. Again an identical conclusion was recorded by the Investigating officer. The informant (Opp. party No. 1) re-appeared before the II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra and moved an application on the 11th of November, 1982 praying that the disputed receipt relied upon by the plaintiffs of the suit be further examined by the Investigating officer and report he submitted. An application was made in the suit by the Investigating officer for giving the disputed receipt which was kept under sealed cover in his custody for examination. This application was rejected by the Munsif. Then this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved on the 10.7.1984 the matter was on one hand pending in the civil court and on the other, with the Investigating officer who had acquired jurisdiction on the basis of the order passed by the Magistrate on the application given by Opp. party No. 1 on the November 11, 1982. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of Crime No. 286 of 1982 registered under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the IInd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered the points canvassed before me. Shri Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, represented the State Government has also been heard. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that because the cognizance of the alleged offence cannot be taken by the Magistrate in view of the provisions contained in Sec, 195 (i) (b) (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure it will be a futile exercise and, therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate for re-investigation the proceedings incidental thereto be quashed.
(3.) It may be recalled that the question as to whether the receipt relied on by the petitioners in the civil suit is genuine or a forged and fabricated document is to be finally adjudicated upon by the civil court. The document had been produced the suit and reliance has been placed there on by a party. Cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 467 and 471 and identical sections in respect of that document cannot be taken by any criminal court unless a complaint to that effect is filed by the Court in which the document was, produced This position of law is not disputed on behalf of the contesting Opp. party. The learned counsel, however, urged that Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has also been mentioned in the report made by the Opp. part) No. 1 and, therefore, the matter in the hands of the police can proceed in that respect. The report Annexure ii was read out before me. It recites only one fact, namely that interpolation had been made in the receipt which is a fabricated document. On this basis it is said that a case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has also been made out. In my opinion the provisions of this section not attracted. The grievance of Opp. party No. 1 is this much only that the receipt is forged and further that some interpolations had been made therein.;