BERI, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application by way of revision under sec. 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated 22-1-1971, whereby he upheld the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh, dated September 30, 1969, by which the petitioner's complaint was dismissed in view of sec. 195 (l) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) THE brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this petition, are these - Chimnalal petitioner had filed a complaint against accused Nathmal and Laduram on December 7, 1967, in the Court of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh,, on the allegations that a piece of land measuring 216 feet East-West and 216 feet North-South, measuring 46,656 sq. ft. situate near Railway Station, Dundlod Mukandgarh, belonged to the joint family firm of M/s. Jawaharmal Nandlal. It was purchased through a 'patta' dated Asad Sudi 11 Samwat 1999 and, on October 12, 1960, it was given on lease for a period of ten years to firm Babulal Modi for installing a Petrol Pump and presently such a pump is in existence thereon. Nathulal accused, in order to get this land, set up his claim of ownership, and for that put pose, forged a 'patta' of Thikana Dundlod of Miti Baisakh Sudi 10 Samwat 2010, in the name of his servant Laduram, the second opposite party before me, and obtained a sale deed from him in regard to the land aforesaid and presented it for registration before the Registrar of Deeds on August 1, 1966, and succeeded in getting it registered. Later on, however, the registration was cancelled. On September 28, 1966, a civil suit (No. 260 of 1966) was instituted by Chimanalal for recovery of rent in regard to the land above mentioned to which Nathmal was a party. A complaint was presented, as already stated, on December 7, 1967, alleging that the accused persons had committed an offence under sec. 467, I. P. C. THE Sub Divisional Magistrate sent it for investigation u/s. 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the Police Station, Nawalgarh. After necessary investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the allegations made in his complaint were correct. THE Station House Officer of the Police Station, Nawalgarh, moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate that a prima facie case had been made out. Eventually, a Chilian was presented against both the accused persons Nathmal and Laduram by the police on 6-6-1968, under secs. 420, 467 and 468 I. P. C. THE accused, however, moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate raising the objection that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in view of the provisions contained in sec. 195 (l) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure THE learned Magistrate relying on a number of rulings cited before him, accepted the contention of the accused and while dismissing the complaint quashed the proceedings against the accused. Dissatisfied from this order, the complainant moved the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, but without success. He has now come before me in revision. Mr. P. N. Datt argues that the complaint and the police Chilian relate to the forgery of the documents namely, a 'patta' in favour of Laduram and a sale deed executed by Laduram in favour of Nathmal. The sale deed was presented for registration on August 1,1966 It is reasonable to presume that the foundational document 'patta' must have existed before the deed of sale was presented for registration. As both the documents were in existence before the civil suit No 250 of 1966 was instituted by Chimnalal for recovery of rent to which Nathmal was a party, the prohibition contained in sec. 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not operative on the authority of two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai vs. State of Gujarat (l) and Raghunath vs. State (2 ). The provision of law, which I am called upon to interpret, is sec. 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it reads - "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servant.- (l) No Court shall take cognizance - (a ). . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . (c) of any offence described in sec. 463 or punishable under sec. 471, sec. 475 or sec. 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. " This provision has been the subject matter of many decisions, quiate a number of which have been cited by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and there was a divergence of opinion in regard to its interpretation It would be futile to trace the divergence of judicial opinion in view of the authoritative interpretation given by the Supreme Court in the two cases cited by Mr. Datt. In Patel Laljibhai Somabhai vs. The State of Gujarat (l), the Hon'ble Judges, after examining the provisions of sec. 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the context of sec. 467 of the I. PC. came to the conclusion that the under-lying purpose of enacting sec. 195 (1) (b) and (c) and sec. 467 was to control the natural impulse of vindictiveness on the part of the private complainants to harass their opponents and also to avoid the possible confusion, which a conflict of decisions might entail. Dua J. speaking for the Bench, observed: "the offences about which the court alone, to the exclusion of the aggrieved private parties, is clothed with the right to complain may, therefore, be appropriately considered to be only those offences committed by a party to a proceeding in that court, the commission of which has a reasonably close nexus with the proceedings in that Court so that it can, without embarking upon a completely independent and fresh inquiry, satisfactorily consider by reference principally to its records the expediency of prosecuting the delinquent party. It, therefore, appears to us to be more appropriate to adopt the strict construction of confining the prohibition con tained in sec. 195 (l) (c) only to those cases in which the offences specified therein were committed by a party to the proceeding in the character as such party. . . . . . . . . " In para No. 11 it is further observed, "in this case the offence under sec. 471, I. P. C. is clearly covered by the prohibition contained in sec. 195 (l) (c) but the offence u/s. 467 I P. C. can in our view be tried in the absence of a complaint by the Court unless it is shown by the evidence that the documents in question were forged by a party to the earlier proceeding in his character as such party, in other words, after the suit had been instituted. " It is true-that Nathmal is a party in the civil suit No. 260 of 1966, although Laduram is not. It cannot be also reasonably disputed that the documents came into existence prior to September 23, 1966, when the suit was instituted and one of the documents was presented for registration on August 1, 1966 and the other document was a foundational document. Can it be said, in these circumstances, that the offences under secs. 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code, have been committed by Nathmal in respect of documents produced or given in evidence in such civil suit No. 260 of 1966? The answer to this question is plainly in the negative because in the language of the Supreme Court the documents came earlier in existence than the civil suit in which they have been produced. Sec. 467, Indian Penal Code, is an offence relating to forgery of a valuable security. Prima facie, it appears that 'pattas' and sale deeds fall within the category of valuable securities. Sec. 468, Indian Penal Code is an offence relating to forgery for the purposes of cheating. I express no opinion whether sec. 420, Indian Penal Code, will have any meaning in the circumstances. That certainly is not production, prosecution under which requires any prior sanction. The case before me is clearly covered by the authorities of the Supreme Court cited above and sec. 195 (1) (c), Code of Criminal Procedure, is no prohibition for the enquiry or trial of the criminal complaint and the Chilian.
(3.) IN the result, the revision application is accepted and the orders of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh, dated September 20, 1969 and of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated January 22, 1971, are hereby quashed. The case will now go before the appropriate court for further action. Mr. Tibrewal conceded before me that the matter is covered by the two decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, but he still thinks that the matter may require reconsideration by the Supreme Court and, therefore, prays, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The matter, in my opinion, stands concluded by the two authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above and that being so, leave to appeal is refused. .;