Sabina, J. - (1.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 03.11.2012.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court had rightly taken cognizance of the offence against the accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 166 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, Appellate Court had erred in allowing the appeal on the ground that bar under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') was applicable. Respondents No.2 to 4 had obtained a wrong report from respondent No.5 with regard to the service of the petitioner in a Revenue suit filed by respondents No. 2 to 4. Hence, the said suit was decreed in ex-parte against the petitioner on 14.09.2001. Thereafter, on coming to know about the passing of the decree, petitioner has moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the said proceedings are pending. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2119 in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, wherein, it was held as under:- "In the present case, the will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody's case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the said will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference."
(3.) Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in George Bhaktan Vs. Rabindra Lele and Others, 2014 15 SCC 227, wherein, it was held as under:- "Eventually, taking note of the facts in that case, the Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah case held that the Will in question had been produced in the Court subsequently and there was no allegation that the offence as enumerated in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) was committed in respect of the said Will after it had been produced or filed in the Court, the bar created by the said provision would not come into play and hence, there was no embargo on the power of the court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainants therein.";