JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Kumaun. Hit has recommended that the proceedings against the accused Ranbir Singh Jain in so far as they relate to the offence u/s 466 I.P.C. be quashed as there is no proper complaint as required u/s 195(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of this charge. 2. It appears that on the 3rd July 1950 the accused had made an application to the Munsarim of the District Judge, Kumaun, for obtaining copies of certain documents which were filed in Civil Suit No. 47 of 1945 which had been instituted on the 5th May, 1945 and decided later on. It was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that some time after the application for copies had been made the accused made some alteration in the application and thereby committed notice of the then District Judge of Kumaun and he sent a D.O. letter to the Superintendent of Police, Naini Tal, requesting him to depute some police officer to investigate into the matter. The matter was investigated by a Sub-Inspector of police who had been deputed by Superintendent of Police and the charge sheet was submitted by the police under Sections 448, and 466 I.P.C. against the accused. 3. The accused went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge. It was contended that as there was no proper complaint against him by the District Judge, Kumaun, he could not be prosecuted u/s 466 I.P.C. in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed by him in the course of certain proceedings which were held in the court of the District Judge. It was also contended there that there was not sufficient material on the record for the charge u/s 448, I.P.C. 4. The question which arose before the learned Sessions Judge was whether there was any proceeding in the court in which the offence u/s 466 I.P.C. was said to have been committed by the accused. In deciding this point he referred to the General Rules (Civil) framed by the Allahabad High Court with regard to the procedure which has to be observed in obtaining copies of certain documents. In deciding this point he referred to the General Rules (Civil) framed by the Allahabad High Court with regard to the procedure which has to be observed in obtaining copies of certain documents. He has referred to Rules 3, 15 and 20, as also Rules 23, 25 and 26 of Chapter X of the General Rules (Civil) and also to Form No. 28 in which application for copies, has to be made. From an examination of these Rules it appears that the application for copies has to be made to a court though for the sake of convenience it is received by the Munsarim of that court or by any other official especially deputed by the court for that purpose. He has also referred to a decision of the Lahore High Court Fakir Singh v. Emperor AIR 1928 Lah.759. It was held in this case that proceedings arising out of an application to obtain a copy must be deemed to be pending before that court and that it is open to the Court to delegate its functions to somebody else and the official to whom such functions are delegated really exercises them on behalf of the Court and acts as its ministerial officer. It was also held that there could be no prosecution in respect of forgery committed in such proceeding without a proper complaint by the court before whom such proceeding was pending. In view of this decision there is no doubt that the words 'proceeding in any court' contemplated in Section 195(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure include a proceeding which arises out of an application made for obtaining copies of certain documents, and are not necessarily confined to judicial proceedings. 5. It was not disputed in this case that there was no proper complaint by the District Judge in whose court the proceedings were pending out of which this case arose. The letter which was sent by the District Judge to the Superintendent of Police for making an investigation into the matter cannot be considered to be a complaint because a complaint has got to be made to some court. 6. The letter which was sent by the District Judge to the Superintendent of Police for making an investigation into the matter cannot be considered to be a complaint because a complaint has got to be made to some court. 6. In the circumstances I am of opinion that the accused could not be prosecuted u/s 466 I.P.C. relating to the offence which is said to have been committed in respect of the application which was made for obtaining copies of certain documents as there was no proper complaint as required u/s 195 Code of Criminal Procedure 7. I, therefore, accept the reference, quash the proceedings in so far as they relate to the offence u/s 460 I.P.C. against the accused and direct that the record Shall be sent down to the court below for further action.