M.M.S.BEDI, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by three Advocates of Ludhiana under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the validity of order dated May 23, 2005 (annexure P-5) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana while deciding a revision petition titled Mohinder Kumar v. B.P. Bansal and others. Vide order dated May 23, 2005, annexur P-5, the revisional Court has set aside the order dated February 7, 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, dismissing the criminal complaint filed by the respondent at summoning stage.
(2.) FOR the just decision of this petition, a reference to the relevant facts is necessary. The respondent-Mohinder Kumar had filed a complaint dated August 28, 2004 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, on September 24, 2004, alleging that the petitioners in the capacity as Advocates had committed fraud by signing for one another in Labour-cum-Conciliation Office, Circle 6, Ludhiana, whereas they were not even permitted by law under Rule 36 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to be present for conciliation. The signatures given in documents in Labour Court by petitioner B.P. Bansal and Manoj Bansal do not match with the signatures of authorization letter submitted before the Labour Officer, Circle 6, Ludhiana. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide order dated February 7, 2005 dismissed the complaint (Annexure P-3). A perusal of the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, indicates that the Additional CJM, who was Illaqa Magistrate of Police Station Division No. 5, had called for the report of SHO on application of the complainant-respondent. The SHO had recorded the statement of complainant-respondent on September 16, 2004. In his statement, the respondent had stated that he was Surgeon in Mohan Dai Hospital since August 4, 1995. He had gone to Saudi Arabia on July 3, 1999, after giving leave application. On May 8, 2000 he came hack but was not allowed to enter the Hospital regarding which his case is pending in the Labour Court. In Labour Court, petitioners B.P. Bansal, Rajneesh Bansal and Manoj Bansal, appeared as Advocates against him on behalf of owners of the Hospital. Power of Attorneys were filed before Labour Court with their signatures made in presence of complainant and Judge Sh. A.K. Singla. These signatures do not tally. Petitioner-B.P. Bansal, Advocate of Labour cases also made a statement to the police and stated that he is an Advocate of Mohan Dai Hospital before the Labour Court. The respondent Dr. Mohinder Kumar had filed the case and the petitioners has appeared against him in the Labour Office and Labour Court. The leave of respondent for one month was rejected. He had left India for Saudi Arabia. The respondent had served in Paha Hospital where also he had a dispute with the Management and was removed on September 13, 2004. It is reflected from the order that the police had arrived at a conclusion that the signatures of Advocates on Vakalat Nama and signatures appended by them in presence of the Court of Sh. A.K. Singla, do not tally. The SHO had recommended for filing of the complaint because police had nothing to do in this regard. After the police had concluded that the allegations in the complaint were incorrect and recommended filing of the complaint, the respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, with the allegations that on March 7, 2003 Manoj Bansal, petitioner No. 3 appeared before Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Ludhiana and gave an authority letter on which he did signatures for B.P. Bansal-petitioner No. 1 and Rajneesh Bansal, petitioner No. 2 in presence of complainant aid prayed that the Court should prosecute the petitioners for forgery. The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana, Sh. Sangeet Pal Singh vide order dated February 7, 2005 dismissed the compliant filed by the respondent forming an opinion that even if for the sake of argument it was admitted that signatures of Advocates on documents filed before the Labour Court and on the documents filed before Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, are different, the same did not cause any loss to the respondent nor caused any wrong to the Advocates as such the necessary ingredients of forgery under Section 463 IPC were not made out, as all the three Advocates were authorized by the Management to appear in the Court and anyone of the three could get his presence marked. The complaint was dismissed vide order dated February 7, 2005. Copy of the order dismissing the complaint of the respondent is annexure P-3 dated February 7, 2005. The respondent was not satisfied with the order of dismissal of his complaint annexure P-3, therefore, he preferred a revision petition against the order dated February 7, 2005 passed by Sh. Sangeet Pal Singh, JMIC, Ludhiana. The revisional Court took into consideration the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and held that when an offence under Section 163 IPC is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court said Court can take cognizance if complaint is filed by the Court. The said Court can take the cognizance of an individual. In such circumstances, the individual can move under Section 340 Cr.P.C. where procedure is prescribed for cases mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the order passed by revisional Court is reproduced for ready reference :- "9. After considering the submissions of the complainant, I am of the view that complaint is filed basically to take action against the three Advocates for signing for one and the other in Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer (Circle 6) Ludhiana and the said document was given in the Hon'ble Labour Court. Section 463 of the IPC is as under :- "Whoever makes any false documents or Electronic Record part of a document or Electronic Record with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support my claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery." As per provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of any offence described in the Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. So court can take cognizance only if complaint is filed by the Court. The Court cannot take cognizance on the complaint of an individual. Under such circumstances an individual can move under Section 340 Cr.P.C. where procedure is prescribed for cases mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Section 340 Cr.P.C. is as under :- "1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 195, which appears, to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court, such court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, - (a) Record a finding to that effect; (b) Make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) Send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) Take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable, and the court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) Bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate." In view of the bar created by 195 Cr.P.C. Ld. Lower Court could not take the cognizance of complaint dated 28.8.29004 but instead of asking the complainant to move the Labour Court for initiation of action against the accused, Ld. Lower court dismissed the complaint on merits. So order under revision is not correct and legal. 10. One other complaint was moved by the complainant on 16.12.04, instead of separately registering the said complaint and separately trying the said complaint, same was attached with this file. Complaint dated 16.12.04 was separate complaint in which some other criminal acts which were alleged to have been committed were mentioned, so the trial court was required to try said complaint separately. Since trial court failed to take cognizance of said complaint dated 16.12.04 separately, so the said complaint is required to remanded back to the trial court with the direction to try the same in accordance with law. 11. In the light of the above discussion, the order under revision is not sustainable in the eyes of law, so the same is hereby set aside. Complainant is advised to move the Labour Court u/s 340 Cr.P.C. if he desires with regard to the acts of accused mentioned in complaint dated 28.8.04. The ld. Trial Court is directed to separate the complaint dated 16.12.04 and register the same separately and to try the sane in accordance with law. Revisionist is directed to appear before the trial Court on 27.5.05. Copy of this judgment be placed on the file of Ld. Lower Court and same be returned immediately. This file is ordered to be consigned to record room. Announced. Sd/-Addl. Sessions Judge, 27.5.05 Ludhiana."
(3.) SO far as the complaint moved by respondent dated December 16, 2004 is concerned, this Court is not concerned with the same as counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said complaint has also been dismissed after the remand. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that the revisional Court has, without jurisdiction relegated the respondent to seek the remedy by filing a compliant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not a Court for the purpose of provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Bank Ltd, Delhi v. The Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 188 and a Division bench judgment of Patna High Court in R.S. Murthy v. R.K. Naug and another, 1976 II LLJ 53.;