JUDGMENT 1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Comillah to show cause why the proceeding against the Petitioner, dated the 11th September 1912, directing a further enquiry into the case, should not be set aside on the second ground mentioned in the petition. The second ground mentioned in the petition is as follows :-" For that the learned Additional District Magistrate has erred in practically ignoring the fact that the offence, if any, committed by the Petitioner came under the first part of sec. 193, I. P. C, which is a graver offence than that referred to in the latter part, and as this graver offence requires sanction under sec. 195, Cr. P. C., the present prosecution is bad in law." 2. The facts antecedent to the present proceedings are these :-One Abdul Majid Khan, the present Petitioner, had married one Abeda Khatun, the elder daughter of the present complainant. This girl died some time in 1313 in her husband's house. The complainant and his wife thereupon instituted a suit in the local Civil Court against Abdul Majid Khan for recovery of their share of the dower and the ornaments left by Abeda Khatun. It was then alleged that the present Petitioner fabricated a false kabilnama alleging that he had married Tajunnessa Khatun, another daughter of the complainant in 1317. The complainant alleges that no such marriage had ever taken place. This kabilnama appears to have been registered in the local Sub-Registry Office on the 20th of October 1910. On behalf of the prosecution it is alleged that Abdul Majid fabricated this document with the intention of using it in a judicial proceeding. On the strength of this kabilnama the present Petitioner, Abdul Majid, instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against Tajunnessa and her father, the complainant. Along with the plaint a certified copy of the kabilnama was filed by the Petitioner, as a proof of his marriage with Tajunnessa and he asked the Court to summon Tajunnessa to produce the original. But as Tajunnessa alleged that she was not in possession of that document and that no marriage had ever taken place, the Petitioner applied to the Court to have the document produced from the Sub-Registry Office. But as Tajunnessa alleged that she was not in possession of that document and that no marriage had ever taken place, the Petitioner applied to the Court to have the document produced from the Sub-Registry Office. When that suit had proceeded thus far the Petitioner applied to the Court for permission to withdraw the suit, with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Permission was however refused and thereupon an appeal was preferred to the A apellate Court against the order of the Munsif refusing permission. 3. The complainant then instituted the present case, without having obtained any sanction under sec. 195, Cr. P. C., from the Munsif. The Deputy Magistrate, who was in charge of this criminal case, dismissed the complaint under sec. 203, Cr. P. C., on the ground, among others, that no sanction having been accorded by the Munsif, the prosecution of the Petitioner could not be allowed. An application was then made to the Additional District Magistrate by the present complainant for a further enquiry into this case. That officer held that sanction was not necessary, on the ground that the offence under sec. 193, I. P. C., that is, fabricating false evidence, was completed as soon as the document was fabricated, if it could be shown that it was the intention of Abdul Majid at the time to use it in a judicial proceeding. That this must have been his intention was. he further held, proved by his own conduct in instituting a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and by the fact that in that suit be produced a certified copy of the kabilnama in question. He held that the offence under sec. 193, I. P. C., was not in the circumstances committed in any Court, or in relation to any judicial proceeding and an order for further enquiry was passed by him. 4. The Petitioner then moved this Court and obtained the present Rule. For the purposes of the Rule we assume that the kablinama was forged. 5. The point of law involved is whether in the circumstances sanction by the Munsif's Court was necessary or not. If it was necessary the present proceeding must be set aside : if not, the case against the Petitioner should proceed. For the purposes of the Rule we assume that the kablinama was forged. 5. The point of law involved is whether in the circumstances sanction by the Munsif's Court was necessary or not. If it was necessary the present proceeding must be set aside : if not, the case against the Petitioner should proceed. If the Petitioner had not instituted a civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights and had not in that suit relied upon the kabilnama no sanction would have been necessary. But when, after fabricating that document he lodges a suit, files a certified copy of the kabilnama, and asks the Court to cause the original to be produced we must hold that the offence imputed was committed in relation to a judicial proceeding in the Munsif's Court. That being so, under sec. 195, cl. (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court can take cognisance of the offence, except with the previous sanction, or on the complaint, of the Munsif's Court, or of some other Court to which the Munsif's Court is subordinate. That being our view we make the Rule absolute, and set aside the order directing a further enquiry into the case. The proceedings taken under that order are quashed.