- (1.) B. K. Kathi, J. This revision has been filed by the applicant Smt. Munnan feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10-5-93 passed by the C. J. M. , Allahabad by which he rejected the application of the applicant for quashing the proceedings as being barred by Section 195, Cr. P. C.
(2.) I have heard Sri L. K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri K. K. Pandey for opposite party No. 1 and the learned A. G. A. In this case a complaint against the applicant for the offences under Sections 191,193,463,467 and 471, I. P. C was filed by opposite party No. 1 for filing photostat copy of the forged judgment filed before the mutation Court in Nagar Mahapalika. The mutation Court directed opposite party No. 2 to file a complaint against the applicant for producing forged evidence on 28-12-91. After that order the com plaint was filed by opposite party No. 1 in compliance of the said order. The ap plicant moved an application to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is barred by Section 195, Cr. P. C. and there fore, the present proceedings be quashed. That application was rejected. After considering the arguments, I do not find any illegality in the order of the trial-court. The complaint is pending since 1991 and it is numbered as 2632/91. Opposite party No. 2 has filed counter- af fidavit that the entire evidence in the case has been recorded and 3-4-93 was fixed for defence evidence, but no evidence was adduced on that date and the applicant sought adjournment, on which the case was adjourned to 15-4-93 for defence evidence. On that date adjournment again moved by the applicant and the case was adjourned to 30-4-93. Thereafter in place of producing defence evidence, the ap plicant moved an application under Section 195, Cr. P. C. It is further alleged by opposite party No. 1 that the arguments in the case have also been heard and the cause is at the stage of judgment.
(3.) THEREFORE, the application of the applicant was not maintainable and is only an abuse of process of the Court and the applicant is trying to delay the disposal of this case and her delay not for six years by filing the present revision on frivolous grounds. at the stage of summoning, the applicant did not raise the plea that the complaint is barred by Section 195, Cr. P. C. Even at the stage of charge, this plea was not raised and now the case is ripe for final arguments. After the charge, the proceed ings cannot be quashed by the Magistrate. The proceedings will either result in con viction or acquittal. The charge once framed, cannot be struck off, cancelled or quashed. THEREFORE, the plea of bar under Section 195, Cr. P. C. should have been taken by the applicant at the time of final arguments and there was no stage to move the application, which was intended only to delay the disposal of the case. Prima facie also the complaint is not barred by S. 195, Cr. P. C. as the forged document was filed in the Court and forgery was not made in the document after it was filed in the Court. Therefore, S. 195, Cr. P. C. has no application as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "sachchida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 Supreme Court, 1121: 1998 JIC 838 (SC)". I, therefore, find that the revision is without any merit.;