JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern disposal of Misc. Cri. Case No. 1749 of 1986, Arunodya Choubey and two others v. Shivkant Choubey and one another which arises out of the same order and, therefore, involves common questions of law and facts. ( 2. ) THESE two cases arise out of the order dated 31st March, 1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 1986, Smt. Chhotibai and three others v. Shivkant Choubey and Anr. . The revision before the learned Sessions Judge was directed against the order dated 13-1-1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Bhopal in Regular Trial No. 11 of 1986 whereby a complaint filed by Shivkant Choubey and Puraskar Choubey against Smt. Chhotibai and others was registered under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code and process issued. The learned Sessions Judge found no ground for registering complaint against Smt. Chhotibai and quashed the same. He, however, found sufficient justification for continuing proceedings against others. The present criminal revision is directed against the aforesaid order in so far as it exonerates Smt. Chhotibai. The Misc. Cri. Case has been filed by others against whom proceedings have been continued. ( 3. ) ONE Shri Ramgulam Choubey had filed a civil suit in the Court of III Civil Judge, Class II, Khurai (Civil Suit No. 36-A/80) during his life time. He unfortunately died on 1-8-1983 and, therefore, non-applicant Smt. Chhotibai, through her lawyer filed an application claiming to be the sole legal representative of said Shri Ramgulam Choubey on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by Shri Choubey on 14-4-1983. A photo copy of the Will was also filed before the learned Civil Judge. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the revision petitioner learnt about this Will which, according to them, was forged and fabricated and lodged a report to the C. ID. , Bhopal on 14-12-1983. They were, however, advised to file a complaint. They, therefore, filed a complaint on 29-12-1983 against Smt. Chhotibai and three others alleging offences under Sections 420/464/465/467/471/474 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate registered this complaint and directed an enquiry into the allegation under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, by order dated 13-1-1986, the learned Magistrate found sufficient reason for registering complaint under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate registered this complaint and directed an enquiry into the allegation under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, by order dated 13-1-1986, the learned Magistrate found sufficient reason for registering complaint under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. He accordingly issued process to the accused persons for their appearance in the Court on 19-2-1986. The order dated 13-1-1986 was challenged by Smt. Chhotibai and others in revision before the learned Sessions Judge as illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge went through the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that it does not connect Smt. Chhotibai with the offence in any manner. According to him, the mere fact that her Advocate filed a photo-copy of the Will in the Court is not sufficient to make her liable for offences under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge was also of the opinion that even if Smt. Chhotibai was possessed of the Will and was one of the beneficiaries, no inference of her being a co-conspirator to its alleged forging can legitimately be drawn. That is how proceedings against non-applicant Smt. Chhotibai were quashed. It is this part of the order, which is subject matter of the present criminal revision. The unsuccessful revision petitioners also feel aggrieved by this order and challenge the same in the present Misc. Criminal Case. ( 4. ) SUBMISSION of the learned cousnel for the revision petitioners is that the material* on record would justify framing of charge against Smt. Chhotibai and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge acted beyond his jurisdiction in quashing proceedings against her. According to him, what has to be seen at this stage is whether the material justifies a reasonable suspicion against the non-applicant Smt. Chhotibai and nothing more. Reliance has been placed on Supreme Court decision in Pratibha Rani v. Suruj Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 628 . The learned counsel for petitioners in Misc. Cri. Case, however, submitted that since charges against them relate to a document filed in the Court, they could have been prosecuted only if the said Court had filed a criminal complaint against them. Reliance has been placed on Section 195 (l) (b) (ii), Criminal Procedure Code. It is further submitted that evidence on record does not justify putting the petitioners on trial for offences under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. Reliance has been placed on Section 195 (l) (b) (ii), Criminal Procedure Code. It is further submitted that evidence on record does not justify putting the petitioners on trial for offences under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the whole purpose of criminal proceedings is to gain advantage in civil proceedings by deterring Smt. Chhotibai from pursuing her claim to be the sole legal representative of Late Shri Ramgulam Choubey. Learned counsel for revision petitioners, however, submitted that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Criminal Procedure Code has no application to the present case as the criminal complaint is not in relation to a document filed in the civil Court. The learned counsel stated at the bar that the original Will has not yet been produced before the civil Court. Relying on Sanmukhsingh and Anr v. The King, AIR (37) 1950 PC 31, the learned counsel submitted that the provision is attracted only when a document has been filed in the Court and has no application when only its copy has been produced. The learned counsel further justified issue of processes, according to him, there was sufficient material available on record for the said purpose. ( 5. ) POWERS of this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code are extraordinary in nature and intended to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, when there is reason to believe that the process of law is being misused to harass a citizen. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors. , AIR 1976 SC 1947 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down four types of cases where this power may be used to quash or set aside the order of the Magistrate issuing process against an accused person, viz. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors. , AIR 1976 SC 1947 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down four types of cases where this power may be used to quash or set aside the order of the Magistrate issuing process against an accused person, viz. , : (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are Wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. In Pratibha Devis case relied by the learned counsel, these principles are applied mutatis mutandis to a case started on a complaint. Under the circumstances, it must be conceded that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code are not intended to provide an appellate forum for reagitating a grievance, which the Legislature had made final. ( 6. ) IN a case started on a complaint, the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to issue process only if in his opinion, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding with the same, as would be clear from Section 204, Criminal Procedure Code. The language of this provision clearly indicates that it is a matter for judicial determination and is based on material on record. The words "in the opinion of the Magistrate" point to the necessity of application of judicial mind to the evidence on record and rules out the possibility of either acting mechanically or arbitrarily. In spite of it, the provision does not require the complainant to make out a case beyond reasonable doubt. "sufficient grounds for proceeding" with the trial are usually equated to the "existence of a prima facie case" sufficient to put the applicant on trial. In spite of it, the provision does not require the complainant to make out a case beyond reasonable doubt. "sufficient grounds for proceeding" with the trial are usually equated to the "existence of a prima facie case" sufficient to put the applicant on trial. Trial by itself, cannot be accepted as a proof of harassment of an accused person as in such a case, no one would ever be put on trial. Trial only intends to provide an opportunity to the complainant to prove his case in accordance with law and gives the corresponding opportunity to an accused person to justify his stand. In spite of it, it has been recognised that where the dispute raised was purely of civil nature and criminal proceedings initiated was an abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court was within its jurisdiction to quash proceedings to prevent the aforesaid abuse. Keeping these legal principles in mind, material on record may be examined to ascertain if the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge can be sustained. ( 7. ) A perusal of the complaint would indicate that it was alleged by the complainants that accused Arunodya Choubey and Veerbhan Singh went to Bhopal Court on 16-9-1983 and purchased stamp from the Stamp Vendor (para 6 ). It is further alleged that both of them got the deed typed from petition writer Syed Asif Ali on 13-10-1983 and antedated it to 14-4-1983, which was a public holiday. This forged Will, according to the complaint, remained in possession of the accused persons, who tried to get benefit for Smt. Chhotibai. It was also alleged that Smt. Chhotibai acting through her Advocate, Shri Subhash Chand Shrivastava, sought the permission of the Civil Court to pursue the civil suit as the sole representative of Late Shri Ramgulam Choubey. The complaint, therefore, alleges nothing against Smt. Chhotibai except filing of the Will in the Civil Court by her Advocate. This, according to the learned Sessions Judge, is not sufficient to attract Section 467 or 468, Indian Penal Code. Section 467 deals with forging a document purporting to be valuable security or Will whereas, Section 468 deals with forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for purposes of cheating. This, according to the learned Sessions Judge, is not sufficient to attract Section 467 or 468, Indian Penal Code. Section 467 deals with forging a document purporting to be valuable security or Will whereas, Section 468 deals with forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for purposes of cheating. Simply because a photo-copy of the Will was filed by the Advocate of Smt. Chhotibai, it cannot be said that she was responsible for forging the said Will nor can it be alleged that she committed forgery thereof. Under the circumstances, there is no hesitation in accepting that the complaint, as it is, does not even prima facie make out a case against Smt. Chhotibai under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. ( 8. ) DOES the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate establish prima facie case against Smt. Chhotibai? Puraskar Choubey, who has examined himself in support of the complaint, does not claim to have any personal knowledge of forgery and, therefore, his evidence would be wholly irrelevant for establishing case against Smt. Chhotibai. Even otherwise, he alleges nothing against her personally. Shivkant Choubey also does not claim any personal knowledge of forgery and, therefore, there is nothing in his evidence to directly connect Smt. Chhotibai. Both these persons, however, make allegations against other accused persons. Their evidence about others is, however, based on information and not personal knowledge. Ajay Rajan (C. W. 3) is a witness to an affidavit sworn before Shri Alok Verma, Magistrate, First Class. Arjundas (C. W. 4) had earlier given an affidavit that he did not like to give evidence in the Court, but later on changed his mind and gave the evidence. He is the person acting as Stamp Vender and stated that his register was seized by the Magistrate vide Ex. C-4. According to him, he has sold a stamp in the name of Smt. Chhotibai to some one whom he does not know*. He is, however, certain that Smt. Chhotibai did not come to purchase the stamp. This evidence, if at all, exonerates Smt. Chhotibai fully. Syed Asif Ali, the petition writer, was also cited as a witness, but declined to give evidence. This is the total evidence in the case recorded so far. This evidence does not in any way connect Smt. Chhotibai with the offence and, therefore, is not sufficient to start criminal prosecution against her. Syed Asif Ali, the petition writer, was also cited as a witness, but declined to give evidence. This is the total evidence in the case recorded so far. This evidence does not in any way connect Smt. Chhotibai with the offence and, therefore, is not sufficient to start criminal prosecution against her. Under the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge made no mistake in quashing proceedings against her. ( 9. ) WHILE referring to the evidence, at this stage, it may be conveniently examined if it is suffueient to continue trial against others. Puraskar Choubey as C. W. I has only deposed that Arjundas had informed him that on 16-9-1983 Birbhan Singh had come to him for purchasing a stamp. According to him, since Arjundas was promised Rs. 20/- more he went to his home in a Jeep with Birbhan Singh. According to him, there were two others in the jeep whose names are not stated. He also states that the Jeep belonged to Arunodya Choubey. From his evidence, it would be clear that nothing has been attributed to Arunodya Choubey, or Yagyapalsingh. Only allegation made by this witness is against accused Birbhan Singh. This witness claims to have learnt that the Will was typed by Syed Asif Ali, typist. There is no allegation that Asif Ali informed him of any part played by anyone. Yagyapalsingh is a witness to the Will and, according to this witness, is the brother-in-law of Birbhan Singh. Except for the allegation that he has signed the Will as a witness, there is nothing against him stated by this witness. ( 10. ) SHRI Shivkant Choubey only corroborates the evidence of Puraskar Choubey. According to Shivkant Choubey, signatures of Yagyapalsingh on the Will are possibly forged and got from some one by Birbhan Singh. Though evidence of Puraskar Choubey is not supported either by Arjundas or by Syed Asif Ali, it even if accepted, only justifies framing charge against Birbhan Singh and not others. In view of Shivkant Choubeys statement in the Court about Yagyapalsingh, there would be no justification for putting this person on trial. Only thing coming in evidence of these witnesses against Shri Arunodya Choubey is that it was his jeep, which was used by Birbhan Singh when he went to purchase stamp paper. This is not sufficient to put him on trial for offences under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. Only thing coming in evidence of these witnesses against Shri Arunodya Choubey is that it was his jeep, which was used by Birbhan Singh when he went to purchase stamp paper. This is not sufficient to put him on trial for offences under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, there is no evidence whatsoever to justify issue of process against applicants. Arunodya Choubey and Yagyapalsingh. In this view of the matter, proceedings against these two applicants must be quashed, as they amount to misuse of the process of the Court for no justifiable reason. ( 11. ) THE objection regarding Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Criminal Procedure Code may now be examined. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner stated at the bar that the original Will has not been filed in the Civil Court so far. It is also stated that Smt. Chhotibai by filing applications on 3-2-1984 and 4-2-1984 had withdrawn her claim to be the sole representative on the basis of the Will. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the Will has not been filed in the civil Court. It is nobodys case that the Will is lost and secondary evidence thereof has been permitted. The provision of law aforesaid applies only when the offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced in a Court. The word "document" has to be distinguished from "copy of the document". That appears to be the precise logic why the Privy Council in Sanmukhsinghs case held that this provision would be attracted only when the original forged document is produced in the Court and not otherwise. The Supreme Court decision in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. , AIR 1972 SC 2639 also seems to be supporting the said logic. Under the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the said provision was not attracted. ( 12. ) AS a result of the discussion aforesaid, criminal revision fails and is dismissed. Misc. Criminal Case No. 1749 of 1986 partly succeeds and is allowed by quashing proceedings against petitioners Arunodya Choubey and Yagyapalsingh. The proceedings, however, will continue against petitioner Birbhan Singh.