JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - This criminal reference and the connected criminal revisions are directed against an order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in respect of a preliminary plea taken by the accused that the prosecution commenced against them was barred u/s 195, Code of Criminal Procedure. The view expressed by the Asstt. Sessions Judge was that it was not desirable to decide the objection as a preliminary point and it was, therefore, proper that this objection should be dealt with after the trial. Aggrieved by that order the accused persons filed two separate revisions. One was filed by Sm. Shanti Devi and Shyam Lal and in the other the Applicants were Sadho Ram and three others. The learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, by his order dated 17-7-1967, dismissed the revision preferred by Sadho Ram and others and partly dismissed the other revision also in so far as it purported to be on behalf of Shyam Lai. He however, came to the conclusion that the objection of Sra. Shanti Devi regarding the bar of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure was valid and hence he made a reference to this Court, recommending that the revision by Sm. Shanti Devi be allowed and the committal order dated 24-4-1967 passed by the Asstt. Sessions Judge, in so far as it related to Sm. Shanti Devi be quashed. Sadho Ram and others filed a revision in this Court against the order of the Sessions Judge, dated 17-7-1967 and the other revision was preferred by the accused Shyam Lal, son of Phool Chand. It may be mentioned that the said Shyam Lal is the husband of Sm. Shaftti Devi accused, in whose favour the reference has been made by the Sessions Judge. 2. The learned single Judge before whom the two revisions and the connected reference were first listed referred them to a larger Bench, because there was a conflict between the views expressed by two learned single Judges of this Court in the cases of Jiwa Ram and Others Vs. Gangoli, AIR 1949 All 392 and Har Prasad Vs. Hans Ram and Others, AIR 1966 All 124 : 1965 AWR 82 . 3. The material facts of the case are that in July, 1963, Shyam Lal (accused), on behalf of his wife, namely, Sm. Shanti Devi, (accused) applied to the Tahsildar, Kairana, district Muzaffarnagar, for mutation in favour of Sm. Gangoli, AIR 1949 All 392 and Har Prasad Vs. Hans Ram and Others, AIR 1966 All 124 : 1965 AWR 82 . 3. The material facts of the case are that in July, 1963, Shyam Lal (accused), on behalf of his wife, namely, Sm. Shanti Devi, (accused) applied to the Tahsildar, Kairana, district Muzaffarnagar, for mutation in favour of Sm. Shanti Devi of certain plots in Qasba Jhinjhana, standing in the name of one Sm. Chameli Devi, deceased, on the ground of Sm. Shanti Devi being a legatee of Sm. Chameli Devi under a will. An unregistered will, purporting to be executed by Sm. Chameli Devi, deceased, on 18-1-1956 in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi, was actually produced in the mutation proceedings. In those proceedings Shyam Lal made a statement on oath in support of the will. The Tahsildar passed an order of mutation in favour of Sm. Shanti Devi, on 30-3-1963. On 31-12-1963 the will was got registered. In these circumstances the complainant (who is also named Shyam Lal but is the son of Kishan Lal) filed a complaint purporting to be Under Sections 420, 405 and 467 IPC against ten accused persons including Shyam Lal and his wife Sm. Shanti Devi, alleging that Smt. Chameli Devi had died intestate in 1960 and her property had passed to her legal heirs, including the complainant's father-in-law, Kashi Ram that Jyoti Prasad and Shyam Lal (accused) had been managing the property on behalf of some cosharers and that with the help of other accused embezzled the proceeds thereof by deceiving the owners and had further forged the will on the basis of which mutation was obtained. 4. The Magistrate had originally discharged the accused persons on 31-8-1965 but the order of discharge was set aside in revision and therefore, the Magistrate committed the accused for trial to the sessions court charging five of them (namely, Shyam Lal, Smt. Shanti Devi, Telu Ram, Atma Ram and Sadho Ram) u/s 467 IPC and the remaining five (namely, Jyoti Prasad, Jagdish Prasad, Suraj Prakash, Satya Prakash and Miner Sen) Under Sections 467/109 IPC. Till this stage the accused had not pleaded the bar of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure to the prosecution. In the meantime, Jyoti Prasad (accused) died and there were only nine accused left. Till this stage the accused had not pleaded the bar of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure to the prosecution. In the meantime, Jyoti Prasad (accused) died and there were only nine accused left. Before the trial commenced the accused raised the aforesaid plea as a preliminary objection, giving rise to the present reference and the connected revisions. 5. So far as the accused persons involved in this reference and the revisions are concerned, the factual allegations in regard to them should be carefully analysed in order to appreciate the plea regarding the bar of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused who are parties to these cases before us, are Smt. Shanti Devi, her husband Shyam Lal, Sadho Ram, Atma Ram and Telu Ram. They were charged u/s 467 IPC only and were committed to the court of sessions to stand their trial for that offence alone. But while raising the plea of the bar of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Judge the accused persons also referred to the detailed allegations contained in the complaint and relied on the other offences which were prima facie made out so as to attract the bar. Thus, it was contended that the facts set out in the complaint also disclosed ingredients of offences Under Sections 193/196 IPC and the trial was barred u/s 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, therefore, necessary to notice the crucial allegations embodied in para. 5 of the complaint. It recited that all the accused forged the will on behalf of Smt. Shanti Devi. It proceeded to add that the will was actually forged by accused Shyam Lal with the assistance of all the other accused. The specific role assigned to Telu Ram and Atma Ram accused was that they had abetted the offence of forgrey by attesting the forged will and against Sadho Ram accused it was alleged that he too abetted the crime by becoming a scribe of the forged will. The specific role assigned to Telu Ram and Atma Ram accused was that they had abetted the offence of forgrey by attesting the forged will and against Sadho Ram accused it was alleged that he too abetted the crime by becoming a scribe of the forged will. Thus analysed, the relevant facts according to the prosecution case for determining the validity of the objection u/s 195 Code of Criminal Procedure are that the will was forged by all the accused, that it was actually forged by Shyam Lal accused and the other accused abetted the act in different ways, that Smt. Shanti Devi alone was a party to the mutation, case in which her husband Shyam Lal accused filed a forged will on her behalf and that the said Shyam Lal also made a statement on oath in support of the will in the mutation proceedings before the Tehsildar. 6. The relevant portions of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure read as follows: 195(1) No court shall take cognizance: (a) of any offence punishable Under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC, (45 of 1960), except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate; (b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely Sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or some other Court to which such Court is subordinate; or (c) of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable u/s 471, Section 475 or Section 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. (2)... ... ... ... (3)... ... ... ... (4) The provisions of Sub-section (1), with reference to the offences named therein, apply also to criminal conspiracies to commit such offences and to the abetment of such offences and attempts to commit them. (5)... ... ... ... (2)... ... ... ... (3)... ... ... ... (4) The provisions of Sub-section (1), with reference to the offences named therein, apply also to criminal conspiracies to commit such offences and to the abetment of such offences and attempts to commit them. (5)... ... ... ... Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits cognizance of the offences mentioned therein except on the complaint in writing of the court in which the proceedings are pending in respect of which the offence was committed or in which the document etc. was produced or given in evidence. While Clause (c) of Section 195(1) Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the general offence described in Section 463 IPC, the offences Under Sections 193 and 196 IPC are included in Clause (b) of Section 195(1) of the Code. Sub-section (4) of Section 195 mikes applicable the provisions of Sub-section (1) to the abetment of the offences enumerated in the section. In other words, the bar enacted by Section 195 applies to the commission as well as the abetment of the offences catalogued in the section. The question, therefore, is how far the bar contained in Clauses (c) or (b) of Section 195(1) Code of Criminal Procedure would be operative on the facts of the present case. 7. In order to apply Section 195(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure the conditions precedent are that the accused must be a party to the proceedings in the Court, that the document should have been produced or given in evidence in those proceedings in the Court. The existence of all these requirements is essential and in the absence of any of them the bar would not operate. It is obvious that Smt. Shanti Devi alone was the Applicant before the Tahsildar for mutation in her favour. Thus, she is the only accused who satisfied the first condition, namely, being a party to the proceedings in Court. 8. In our opinion the same conditions are the prerequisites for applying Sub-section (4) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. The abettors would be covered by the bar, provided they are parties to the relevant proceedings in the Court in relation to which the offence was committed or wherein the document was filed, or evidence given etc. Section 195(1)(c) affords protection against prosecution only to the parties to the proceeding and not to others, i.e., not to the abettors or conspirators. Section 195(1)(c) affords protection against prosecution only to the parties to the proceeding and not to others, i.e., not to the abettors or conspirators. When Sub-section (1) has been made applicable to Sub-section (4) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of criminal conspiracies to commit offences of the abetment of such offences as are mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure it is evident that the requirement of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure, that such offence must have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court must also apply. 9. In Emperor v. Ghansham Singh ILR (1910) 32 All. 74 DB it was held that the offences, in respect of which Section 195(1) (c) required sanction, must be offences committed by the parties to the proceedings in a Court and that there was no need of sanction to institute a criminal case against persons who were not parties to any proceedings but were merely accused of abetting the offence committed by a party to the proceedings. That case was followed in Fakir Singh v. Emperor AIR 1928 Lah 781 DB. It was held that there was nothing to prevent the trial of an abettor of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(c) of Code of Criminal Procedure committed by a party to a proceeding in a court, without a complaint by the Court concerned u/s 476 Code of Criminal Procedure. The view expressed by the Lahore High Court in Fakir Singh's case was approved by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Navinchandra Chandulal v. Jaswantlal Bapalal ILR 1960 Bom. 888 FB The same proposition was also affirmed in Kewalram v. Emperor AIR 1947 Sin 129 DB. 10. Learned Counsel for the Applicants in the revisions contended that where an offence referred to in Clause (c) of Section 195(1) Code of Criminal Procedure was jointly committed by several persons but only one of them was a party to the proceeding in a Court, the written complaint of that Court was necessary to prosecute the other joint offenders, even though they were not parties to the proceedings before it. He derived support for his submissions from a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in In re Narayan Dhonddev Bishad 12 Bom. He derived support for his submissions from a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in In re Narayan Dhonddev Bishad 12 Bom. LR 383, in which it was held that the; word 'offence' in Section 195(1)(c) was designedly used in a somewhat abstract manner and that it was the 'offence' itself, not any particular offender's offence, which the section aimed at. That proposition was approved in Navinchandra Chandulal v. Jaswantlal Bapalal (supra). The same view was followed in State v. Bhikubhai AIR 1965 Gujrat 70. It is significant that the Full Bench decision in the case of Navinchandra Chandulal (supra) did not notice the view expressed in an earlier Division Bench case of the same High Court in Emperor Vs. Mallappa Tejappa Bidikar, AIR 1937 Bom 14 . Broomfield and Wasoodew JJ. observe in that case that Section 195(1)(c) could not apply unless the accused was a party to some proceedings in Court and that the word 'party' was to be strictly construed and should not be given a general or extended meaning. It was emphasised that the words "committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court" in Section 195(1)(c) implied that the proceeding must be pending at the material time." The view of the Madras High Court expressed in Ponnusami Udayar and Another Vs. Emperor, AIR 1929 Mad 115 was that when an offence of forgery was committed by more than one person and one of them at least was a party to the proceeding in which the document was produced, such participants in the forgery as were not parties to the proceeding could be prosecuted otherwise than under the provisions of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. A limited meaning was assigned to the term "offence" as used in Section 195(1)(c) and it was construed as referring only to the share taken in the transaction by a party. The power, therefore, to proceed against non-parties was not affected. The decision of the Bombay High Court in "In re Narayan Bhonddey Bishad (supra) was dissented from by Seth, J. in Jiwa Ram and Ors. v. Gangoli (supra). In our opinion the position of law was correctly stated by him in para. 5 of his judgment: According to Section 4(o) Code of Criminal Procedure 'offence' means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. v. Gangoli (supra). In our opinion the position of law was correctly stated by him in para. 5 of his judgment: According to Section 4(o) Code of Criminal Procedure 'offence' means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. The act which has been made punishable by Section 465 IPC, has been described in Section 463 IPC, to be the making of any false document or part of a document with a particular intent. It seems obvious to me that when more than one person combine to commit forgery, the act of each individual forger is distinct from the act of another. According to the Bombay decision it is the entire transaction that constitutes the offences. This interpretation is opposed to the definition of the word 'offence' already quoted, because, according to Section 4(o) Code of Criminal Procedure, it is that act; and not the transaction, which constitutes the offence. In the instant case the forged will purported to be dated 18-1- 1956 but it was not filed in any proceeding in any court until the mutation proceedings were instituted in the year 1963. 11. Applying the law to the facts of the present case, it will be seen that even Sm. Shanti Devi would escape the bar of Section 195(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) applies only to cases where the offence was committed by a person who was a party to the proceedings in any court in which the document was produced and the proceedings were pending in court at the time when the document was forged. This interpretation of Section 195(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure found favour with a Full Bench of this Court in the case of King Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh 1931 ALJR 697. In that case the documents were forged sometime in the year 1893 by a person who did not become a party to the proceedings till the year 1922 when the suit was filed. It was held that the documents did not come within the purview of Section 195(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure. It was observed that an offence which had been committed by a person who did not become a party till about 30 years after the commission of the offence, could not be said to have been committed 'by a party' within the meaning of Clause (c). It was observed that an offence which had been committed by a person who did not become a party till about 30 years after the commission of the offence, could not be said to have been committed 'by a party' within the meaning of Clause (c). The Full Bench also held that Clause (c) of Section 195(1) Code of Criminal Procedure applied only to cases where an offence was committed by a party as such to a proceeding in any Court in respect of a document which had been produced or given in evidence in such proceedings. The same opinion was expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of Chaparala Krishna Brahman Vs. Guduru Govardhanaiah, AIR 1954 Mad 822 . 12. The Gujrat High Court, how ever, took a contrary view in the case of State v. Bhikubhai (supra). It was held by the Gujrat High Court that it was not essential that the proceedings referred to in Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure should be pending proceedings at the time when the cognizance of the criminal court was sought. In view of the Full Bench decision of our own Court the view taken by the Gujrat High Court cannot be accepted. 13. It is, however, to be noted that in the case of Har Prasad v. Hans Ram (supra) a learned single Judge of this Court appears to have taken a slightly different view. A complaint had been lodged Under Sections 467 and 471 IPC and it was alleged that in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy a sale deed had been executed and registered and on the same date one member of the conspiracy had filed a mutation application in the court of the Tehsildar on the basis of that sale deed. It was held that-- (1) close naxus was established between all the three acts, that is to say, execution of a forged document in pursuance of a conspiracy, registration of that document and the filing of the mutation application that very day and all those acts formed various links of the same chain. It was held that-- (1) close naxus was established between all the three acts, that is to say, execution of a forged document in pursuance of a conspiracy, registration of that document and the filing of the mutation application that very day and all those acts formed various links of the same chain. It did not matter that the sale deed had been executed before the mutation application was filed and therefore, the forgery was not committed by the party as such; (2) the finding of fact was that the sale deed fabricated as false evidence for purposes of being used in a judicial proceeding led to the inference that the offence was committed in relation to proceedings in court. Therefore the cognizance of that offence on a private complaint was barred u/s 195(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure. (3) even if the complaint disclosed offences Under Sections 467 and 471 IPC and not u/s 193 IPC private complaint would be barred because the words used in Section 195(1)(b) are "in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such a proceeding." (4) the bar of Section 195(1)(c) will also apply to the case of conspirators who were not parties to the proceeding in court. 14. A perusal of the judgment shows that the cases of King Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh (supra) and Jiwa Ram v. Gangoli (supra) were not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge who decided the case of Har Prasad v. Hans Ram (supra). With great respect we are unable to agree with the views expressed in that case on both the points, to wit, (1) that for purposes of Section 195(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure it is not necessary that the offence should have been committed by a party as such and (2) that the private complaint u/s 467 IPC could not proceed, once it was established that the offence could fall Under Sections 193/196 IPC to which Section 195(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure became applicable. 15. It is a well recognised principle of law that it is not open to any party to file a complaint for a minor offence when a major offence can be established from the facts of the cast and is barred under the provisions of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Dr. 15. It is a well recognised principle of law that it is not open to any party to file a complaint for a minor offence when a major offence can be established from the facts of the cast and is barred under the provisions of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Dr. S. Dutt v. State of UP 1966 AWR 844 SC it was held that the facts as alleged against the expert made out an offence u/s 193/196 IPC (punishable with seven years' rigorous imprisonment) and not one Under Sections 465/471 IPC (punishable with three years' rigorous imprisonment). It was also held that it was not permissible for the prosecution to drop a serious charge and select one which did not require the procedure u/s 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. However, the converse cannot be said to be true. Where a major offence alleged to have been committed is not barred under the provisions of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot be said that a private complaint in respect of that offence cannot be lodged simply because a minor offence which can also be established from some of the facts alleged is barred under the provisions of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly when (1) the two offences are different and (2) there is no close connection between the two. 17. The broad distinction between offences u/s 467 IPC on the one hand and Sections 193 and 196 IPC on the other briefly stated is as follows: Section 467 IPC deals with the offence of forgery of a will by making up a false document. Section 193 deals with the giving or fabricating of false evidence and Section 196 IPC with corruptly using evidence found to be false. The gist of the evidence in the case of an offence u/s 467 IPC is making of the false document and the gist of evidence in the second group is the procuring of false circumstances or the making of a document containing a false statement, so that a judicial officer may form a wrong opinion in a judicial proceeding on the faith of the false evidence. In the present case the complaint was filed only u/s 467 IPC or Section 467 /109 IPC. In the present case the complaint was filed only u/s 467 IPC or Section 467 /109 IPC. A complaint by the court concerned would have been necessary if the case could fall under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. In our opinion and for the reasons stated above the case against none of the accused persons could fail Under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure does not require that the accused persons be parties to any judicial proceeding. The will alleged to be forged was actually filed by Shyam Lal on behalf of his wife, who was an Applicant and therefore, a party to the mutation case. Shyam Lal had also appeared as a witness to prove that will. In the circumstances it can be said that from the allegations made in the complaint the offences punishable u/s 193/196 IPC as against Shyam Lal and u/s 196 IPC as against Sm. Shanti Devi are made out. However, in view of the fact that the offence u/s 467 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life and is a major offence as compared to an offence punishable u/s 193/196 IPC and also because the offence u/s 467 IPC is different in nature from the offences punishable Under Sections 193/196 IPC and there was a gap of several years between the alleged commission of the offence u/s 467 IPC and the alleged commission of the offences u/s 193/196 IPC, it will be difficult to say that the private complaint filed against the accused persons, including Shyam Lal and Sm. Shanti Devi, was barred under any of the provisions of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. In the result the connected revisions fail and are dismissed. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge is rejected and the revision application so far as it relates to Sm. Shanti Devi is also dismissed.