- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. This writ petition has been filed against order dated 14th August, 1995 (modified by order dated 17th August, 1995) passed by C. J. M. Orai under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. by which the police was directed to register a case and investigate the matter under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471,i. P. C. The order of the C. J. M. (Annexure 2) has been upheld by the Sessions Judge in revision, vide his order dated 2nd March, 1996 which is Annexure-6 to the petition.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to the writ petition are that Suit No. 91 of 1992 for permanent injunction was instituted by respondent No. 3 Om Prakash Das on the basis of a registered document dated 30-4-87. Petitioner No. 1 Ram Siyadas filed an appeal against the order of temporary in junction and the appeal was allowed by the District Judge and the injunction order was vacated. THE order of the District Judge was upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No. 42659 of 1992 decided on 13-5-93. Respondent No. 3 Om Prakash Das filed another Suit for cancellation of docu ment dated 4-9-1991 executed in favour of petitioner No. 1 Ram Siyadas by petitioner No. 2 Narendra. Respondent No. 3 Om Prakash Das filed an application under Section 340 Cr. P. C. against the petitioners and a Criminal Misc. Case was registered on its basis which is still pending. Under these circumstances respondent No. 3 Om Prakash Das filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in the Court of C. J. M. , Jalaun at Orai praying, that it may be forwarded to the police because, it was alleged, that the petitioners have committed offences under Sections 465,467,468,471 and 420, I. P. C. On this application the C. J. M. directed the police to register a case and investigate the matter. In compliance to the order, the police registered a case and, proceeded to investigate. The petitioners filed a revision before the Court of Ses sions which was dismissed, vide order An-nexure-6 dated 2nd March, 1996. There fore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the correctness of the order passed by the C. J. M. directing police to register a case and investigate. The main ground in the writ petition is that the power of attorney dated 26-9-90 in favour of Narendra Singh and document dated 4th September, 1991 executed by Narendra Singh in favour of Ram Siyadas were produced before the Civil Court and, therefore, a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. is barred under Section 195 Cr. P. c
(3.) I have heard Sri V. P. Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. S. Singh learned Counsel for the respon dents. There was some controversy in the past as to whether cognizance on the basis of a private complaint is barred or not where the document has been produced before a Civil Court. This controversy has now been set at rest by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. , 1998 Cr. L. J. 1565: AIR 1998 SC 1121. After reviewing the previous cases the Apex Court has held as under in paragraph 12: "the scope of the preliminary enquiry en visaged in Section 340 (1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence affecting ad ministration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia logis. ";