JUDGMENT S. P. Sinha, J. This application is for quashing the order, dated 4.12.1972 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in case no. C/1232/72/TR. No. 2002/72 taking cognizance of offence under section 465 read with section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 2. The facts lie in a short compass. A proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') was started by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, the parties in the said proceeding being the petitioners on the one side and one Chalitar Mahto on the other side. This proceeding was started as a result of a report said to have been made by the Mukhia of Narauli-Bindu Gram Panchayat. After the 144 proceeding terminated, opposite party no. 2, who happens to be the son of the said Chalitar Mahto, filed an application on 9th. September, 1971 before the Sub-divisional Magistrate stating that the report, which formed the basis for starting proceeding under section 144 of the Code was a forged document inasmuch as it was not a report made by the said Mukhia. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur was therefore, requested to proceed under section 476 of the Code against the petitioners for filing a forged document in relation to the proceeding under section 144 of the Code. It appears that long after the petition was filed, on the 3rd of July, 1972 the Sub-divisional Magistrate ordered a preliminary inquiry under section 476 of the Code to be made in the matter. The inquiry was entrusted to some other Magistrate. On receiving the report of a prima facie case having been made out against the petitioners, the Sub-divisional Magistrate by the impugned order, dated 4.12.1972, instead of filing a complaint under section 195 of the Code, treated the application, dated 9.9.71 filed by the opposite party no. 2 as a complaint and took cognizance of offences under section 465 read with section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order have moved this Court. 2 as a complaint and took cognizance of offences under section 465 read with section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order have moved this Court. The reason for not filing a complaint under section 195 of the Code was stated that since the "act of forgery had not been done in respect of the case record in custody of the court, but it had been done outside, the provisions of sections 476 of the Code will not hold good hi this respect." 3. Mr. Baijnath Prasad No. 2, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the learned Magistrate had erred in thinking that the provisions of section 468 of the Code do not apply to the case, because the forgery complained of had been made outside the court and was not in respect of the records of the case in custody of the court. He further submitted that in fact there was no complaint petition before the Magistrate on which he could take cognizance. According to Mr. Prasad, the learned Magistrate having ordered inquiry in terms of section 476 of the Code had no opinion left but to file a complaint in terms of section 195 of the Code. 4. I would not go to the length of saying that if once a court orders for a preliminary inquiry in terms of section 476 of the Code it must necessarily make a complaint. I, however, think that the other contentions raised by Mr. Prasad are sound. Section 476 of the Code lays down the procedure to be followed in cases mentioned in section 195 of the Code. According to this provision of the Code when any civil, revenue and Criminal Court is of the opinion, either on an application made to it or otherwise, that it is expedient In the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence as mentioned in section 195 (1) clause (b) or (c) which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court the court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof forwarding it to a Magistrate of the First Class for doing the needful. The question which has to be determined for filing a complaint in terms of section 476 of the Code is whether any offence, as referred to under section 195 subsection (1) clause (b) or clause (c) has been committed "in or in relation to a proceeding in that court". In the instant case the learned Magistrate seems to have thought that since the forgery complained of namely, in respect of the report said to have been made by the Mukhia of Narauli Bindu Gram Panchayat, had not been done in respect of the case record in custody of the court, but had been done outside the court, section 476 of the Code was not attracted. In my opinion, this is wholly a mistaken notion. The expression "in or in relation to a proceeding in that court." has been the subject matter of interpretation in various decisions. It is, however, the consensus of opinion that whenever a forged document has led a court to initiate a judicial proceeding, it is a forgery "in or in relation to the proceeding in that court. It is immaterial whether the forgery was done before the document was filed in the court or after. It is enough if by reason of that forgery a court is led to initiate a Judicial proceeding [Vide the case of Shaikh Muhammad Yasin Vs. The King Emperor ILR 4 Pat. 323, Daroga Gope Vs. The King Emperor VI PLT 515 and Har Prasad Vs. Hana Ram and others AIR 1966 All. 124 .] In my opinion, therefore, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate was clearly in error in thinking that the provisions of section 476 of the Code will not hold good, because the forgery had not been committed with regard to the record of the case in custody of the Court, but it was done outside the court. A prima facie case having been found against the petitioners under section 476 of the Code the learned Magistrate, could not but take such steps as was required of him by the law. He could not treat the application filed by the opposite party no. 2 as a complaint and take cognizance of offence against the petitioners himself. 5. I accordingly quash the order, dated 4.12.1972 taking cognizance against the petitioners under section 465/120B I.P.C. The application is allowed. Application allowed.