N.C. SHARMA, J.—This Order will decide three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions nos. 190 of 1987, 5 of 1987 and 145 of 1986 filed before this Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. by a common order as the same question of law comes for consideration in all these three petitions. 2. Facts leading to the filing of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 190 of 1987 are that on June 6, 1981 Roop Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh had filed a criminal complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh against Kulwant Singh, Ram Narain and Harmit Singh complaining of the commission of offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 166, 167 and 120B I.P.C. It was alleged by Roop Singh in his complaint that he was Khatedar tenant of agricultural land in chak No. 27 PTP, Sq No. 24 and comprised in killa Nos. 1 to 19 and in Sq. No. 24, Killas Nos. 14 and 15, measuring in all 20 Bighas 10 Biswas (nahari), and he was in its peaceful possession. It was mentioned that Kulwantsingh and his deceased brother Raghuveersingh held agricultural land in their Khatedari in chak No. 28 AMP measuring 3 Bigha and in chak No. 25 PTP measuring 16 Bighas, in all 19 Bighas, over which Kulwantsingh and his deceased brother Raghuveersingh were in possession. It was alleged that Kulwantsingh and his deceased brother used to insist upon the complainant to exchange his agricultural land with their land to which the former did not agree. Due to this refusal, Kulwantsingh and his deceased brother Raghuveersingh in collusion with Ramnarain and Harmitsingh prepared a forged exchange deed and got affixed forged thumb impression of the complainant on that deed and presented the same before Deputy Superintendent, Sadul Sahar for the purpose of getting a mutation effected in their favour. Roopsingh complainant denied that he had executed any exchange-deed and asserted that Kulwantsingh, Ramnarain and Harmitsingh committed various offences under the above mentioned sections of the Indian Penal Code. This criminal complaint was forwarded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh, to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadulsahar under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. for investigation. Roopsingh complainant denied that he had executed any exchange-deed and asserted that Kulwantsingh, Ramnarain and Harmitsingh committed various offences under the above mentioned sections of the Indian Penal Code. This criminal complaint was forwarded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh, to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadulsahar under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. for investigation. It is asserted that the police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner Ramnarain and Kulwantsingh in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh on October 30, 1982 under sections 420, 467,468, 471 and 109 I. P. C. The Magistrate took cognizance for the said offences, issued process against the petitioner and Kulwantsingh and proceeded further to frame charges. Later on, this criminal case was transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sadulsahar. It is mentioned that on June 8, 1981, Roopsingh filed a Revenue Suit No. 81 of 1981 in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh challenging the above exchange deed. In that suit, Roopsingh filed a certified copy of the exchange-deed. A certified copy of the revenue suit No. 89 of 81 has been filed by the petitioner. In that suit Roopsingh claimed for a declaration of his rights in respect of 19 Bighas 10 Biswas agricultural land detailed above and also claimed for a declaration that the alleged exchange-deed purporting to bear the date August 20, 1974 was void and ineffective as against him. 3. The second S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5 of 1987 has been filed by Hetram, Ramchander, Sukhdas and Laduram as against, the State of Rajasthan, Gangaram and Hiraram. It has been alleged by them that on May 2, 1986 Gangaram and Hiraram non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nohar stating that the petitioner No. 4 Laduram got prepared a forged will purporting to have been executed on July 7, 1985 by Tulchharam in favour of one Omprakash son of Laduram petitioner No.4 even after the death of Tulchharam. Petitioner No. 3 Sukhdas was the scribe of that forged will and the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 Hetram and Ramchandra were its attesting witnesses. This will was purported to be executed with respect to a part of the land out of the land comprised in khasra No. 346 situated in village Thirana. Petitioner No. 3 Sukhdas was the scribe of that forged will and the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 Hetram and Ramchandra were its attesting witnesses. This will was purported to be executed with respect to a part of the land out of the land comprised in khasra No. 346 situated in village Thirana. On the basis of this forged will, it was alleged, the petitioner got mutation effected in favour of Omprakash son of Laduram petitioner No, 4 from Gram Panchayat, Nimla. This Criminal complaint was forwarded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar to the Station House Officer Police Station, Nohar under section 156(3) for investigation. The Nohar Police Station forwarded the papers to Pa!lu Police Station where FIR case No. 73 of 1986 was registered on December 13, 1986 against the petitioners for the offence under section 467, and 120 B I. P. C. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Police is now bent upon arresting them during the course of investigation. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing further investigation by the Police on the complaint forwarded to it by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 4. Facts leading to the filing of the third Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 145 of 1986 are that the petitioner Mangilal was granted a patta of land measuring 30 x 45 out of khasra No. 1223 situated in village Ria by the Sarpanch Tulchharam on April 30, 1977. The petitioner was in possession of this plot since then. On April 9, 1984 Mangilal petitioner filed a suit along with an application for temporary injunction under O. 39 rr. 1 and 2 C. P. C. before the Munsif, Piparcity alleging that the disputed plot had been allotted to him but the present Sarpanch, owing to election enmity, wanted to dispossess the petitioner. The application for temporary injunction was rejected by the Munsif on April 9, 1984. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge which was transferred to the court of Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur. The Additional Civil Judge dismissed the appeal. It is further stated that it was observed by him that it would be open to the trial court to get the matter of grant of patta enquired into by the Gram Panchayat as directed by the trial court in its order dated April 9, 1984. The Additional Civil Judge dismissed the appeal. It is further stated that it was observed by him that it would be open to the trial court to get the matter of grant of patta enquired into by the Gram Panchayat as directed by the trial court in its order dated April 9, 1984. The petitioner filed revision No. 514 of 1984 in this court and it is stated that this revision was partly accepted on December 9, 1985 and the petitioners possession was protected. It is next mentioned that Ramuram, the present Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Ria, filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and the former Sarpanch Tulchharam on January 5, 1985. It was alleged in the criminal complaint that the petitioner and the former Sarpanch Tulchharam entered into a conspiracy and the abadi land, which had alredy been allotted, was allotted to the petitioner on April 30, 1977. It was stated that a forged document was prepared and it was complained that offences under section 420, 467 and 471 I. P. C. were Committed by the petitioner and Tulchharam. This criminal complaint filed by Ramuram (present Sarpanch) was forwarded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Piparcity for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. The petitioner has prayed that the criminal complaint be ordered to be dismissed and the investigation which is being done by the Station House Officer, Police Station Piparcity in F. I. R. case No. 2 of 1985 be quashed. 5. In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 190 of 1987 (Ramnarain Vs. State of Rajasthan), it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged forged-deed was already a subject-matter of trial in Revenue Suit No. 8 of 1981, pending in the court of the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh. According to him, the only competent authority to file a criminal complaint was the court of Assistant Collector in which the revenue suit was pending. It was contended that the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh wrongly took cognizance against the petitioner and others on a complaint filed by an incompetent person. According to him, the taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate was barred by the provisions contained in section 195(1) (b) (ii) Cr. It was contended that the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh wrongly took cognizance against the petitioner and others on a complaint filed by an incompetent person. According to him, the taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate was barred by the provisions contained in section 195(1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. It was prayed that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sadulsahar on June 20, 1987 passed in criminal complaint No. 32 of 1987 be quashed along with the further proceedings. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force in it. The reason is that the petitioner has himself stated in para 3 of his petition that only a copy of the alleged forged exchange-deed had been filed by Roopsingh in the revenue court of the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh. The certified copy of the complaint in revenue suit No. 89 of 1981 also mentions in its para No. 3 that copy of the exchange-deed is being produced. In Sanmukhsingh Vs. King (1), the Privy Council, interpreting similar language of the corresponding provisions in the earlier Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, observed that by production of a copy of the allegedly forged document, it cannot be said that the document itself was given in evidence. The judgment of the Judicial Committee was followed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Budhu Ram Vs. State of Raj. (2). The latest decision of the Supreme court on this point is in Shushil Kumar Vs. State of Hariyana (3). His Lordship L. M. Sharma J. observed that the above view accords with the plain grammatical meaning of the words and is also supported by the practical common sense. 7. I, therefore, hold that since the original document of exchange alleged to have been forged was not produced before the revenue Court in the present case, the bar created by the provisions of section 195(1) (b((ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application. Accordingly Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 190 of 1987 is dismissed. 8. 1 may next deal with S B. Criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 5 of 1987 (Hetram and other Vs. State of Rajasthan and others). Accordingly Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 190 of 1987 is dismissed. 8. 1 may next deal with S B. Criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 5 of 1987 (Hetram and other Vs. State of Rajasthan and others). In this case also, the petitioner mentioned in para (b) at page 4 of their petition that the complainant Gangaram and Hiraram suppressed the fact while filing the criminal complaint that a revenue suit had already been filed by non-petitioner Gangaram in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar against Laduram petitioner and others wherein a photo-state copy of the alleged will was produced by Gangaram himself. It is thus clear that in this case also onlya photostat copy of the alleged forged will was produced in the revenue court. The proceedings of this Court dated 11th March, 1987 would go to show that the counsel for the parties sought time to ascertain whether the original will in question had already been filed before the Revenue court or not. On 26th March 1987, the petitioners filed a certified copy of the plaint in Revenue Suit No. 266 of 1986 (Gangaram vs. Omprakash) in order to show that in the said revenue suit, Gangaram non-petitioner No. 2 had alleged in para 7 of the plaint that the alleged will dated July 7, 1985 was a forged document. It is important to note that paras 5 and 7 of that plaint also mentions that only a copy of the alleged forged will had been produced in the revenue court and not the original will. For the original, it was mentioned that same will be got produced later on. Obviously Gangaram non-petitioner could not produce himself the original will which was said to be in favour of Omprakash son of Laduram petitioner No. 4 It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners by an application that the original will dated July 7, 1985 has been produced in original on 13th March 1987 after the filing of the present petition and in that respect they have produced a certified copy of the order sheet of the court of Assistant Collector, Bhadra. It may be stated that the document filed by the petitioner along with their application dated July 2, 1987 go to show that it was in some another revenue suit (different from that pleaded in para (b) of the petition at page 4) i e. in a suit instituted by Om-prakash as against Hariram and Gangaram that the original will has been produced as appears from the list of documents dated 1st March, 1987 produced by the petitioners. On the day the present petition was filed, the original will had not been produced in any revenue suit. 9. Be that all as it may, the other aspect of the matter is that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar had only forwarded the Criminal complaint filed by Gangaram and Hariram for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P. C. to Police Station, Nohar. The Nohar Police Station forwarded the papers to Pallu Police Station where, FIR case No. 73 of 1986 has been registered on December 13, 1986 for offence under section 467 and 120B, I. P. C. and investigation has been alleged to be in progress. What the petitioner had prayed for in the petition is that further investigation on the complaint sent to the police under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. may be quashed because section 195(1) (b) Cr. P. C. is a complete bar to such proceedings and it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 73 of 1986. 10. Section 195(1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. reads as under: - "(ii) No court shall take cognizance of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court." The object and purpose of section 195(1) (b) (ii) of the Code is that it is the court before which an offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced in a proceeding before it which should file or cause to be filed a complaint and not a private party. This section is intended to obviate the possibility of two conflictings finding being recorded by two courts one before which the document was produced in the course of proceedings and the other trying the complaint of forgery. This section is intended to obviate the possibility of two conflictings finding being recorded by two courts one before which the document was produced in the course of proceedings and the other trying the complaint of forgery. It is important to note that the bar created by sec 195 (1) (b) (ii) is against taking cognizance and not against an investigation ordered to be made by a Magistrate under section 190 Cr.P.C. in exercise of his powers under sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the Station House Officer Police Station Pallu on receipt of the complaint from the Judicial Magistrate under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C, registered a case under sections 467 and 120 B. The offence under section 467 I. P. C. is non-cognizable and consequently the offence under section 120 B I. P. C. was also a non-cognizable case and it could only be investigated by the police under orders of the Judicial Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. and that the police was doing. 11. It is well-settled that when on a petition or complaint being filed before him, a Magistrate applies his mind for proceedings under the various provisions of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must be held to have taken cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint. When, however, the Magistrate applies his mind not for such purpose but for purposes of ordering investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or issues a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. This proposition of law is well-settled by a series of decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, namely, in the case of R. R. Chari Vs. State of U. P. (4), Gopaldas Vs State of Assam (5), Jamunasingh Vs. Bhadaisar (6) and Nirmaljeet Singh Hoon Vs. State of West Bengal (7). This view was also taken by his Lordship M B. Sharma J. of this Court in Shankarlal vs. Chaturbhuj (8). His Lordship Sharma J. rightly observed: "It is also observed that what is prohibited by section 195(1) Cr. P. C. is taking cognizance of an offence mentioned therein and not of investigation of the case. If after investigation, the police files a chargesheet and an objection is raised that cognizance cannot be taken because of section 195(1) Cr. His Lordship Sharma J. rightly observed: "It is also observed that what is prohibited by section 195(1) Cr. P. C. is taking cognizance of an offence mentioned therein and not of investigation of the case. If after investigation, the police files a chargesheet and an objection is raised that cognizance cannot be taken because of section 195(1) Cr. P. C. even then in a case where a original document said to be forged is involved, the court will have to decide that objection." 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to me the decision of an another learned single Judge Honble Mr. Justice K. S. Lodha, J., of this Court in Dharamchand Vs. State of Rajasthan (9) wherein an argument had been advanced on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 that even if section 125(1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. was applicable, it was only the cognizance of the case which would be barred, but the investigation could not be barred. The learned single Judge rejected this contention on the ground that when cognizance of the offence is barred except on the complaint of the court, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the investigation and that the continuance of the investigation would amount to unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. His Lordship K. S. Lodha J. quashed the investigation upon the criminal complaint sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In my judgment, the view propounded by Honble K.S. Lodha, J. is erroneous in view of the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in four cases referred to above and I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by Honble Justice M. B. Sharma in Shankarlals case is correct. The reason is obvious. It is quite possible that the police after investigation may come to a conclusion that offence or offences different from those mentioned in section 195(1) (b) (ii) are prima facie made out and make a report accordingly or it may just give a final report. It would, therefore, be clearly wrong to quash the investigation. Consequently, S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 5 of 1987 also fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. Coming to the 3rd and last Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 145 of 1986 (Mangilal Vs. It would, therefore, be clearly wrong to quash the investigation. Consequently, S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 5 of 1987 also fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. Coming to the 3rd and last Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 145 of 1986 (Mangilal Vs. State of Rajasthan), suffice it to state that in this case also the Judicial Magistrate had forwarded the criminal complaint made by Ramuram present Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Ria to the Station House Officer, Police Station Pipar City for investigation under section I56 (3) Cr. P. C. and, therefore, my decision in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5 of 1987 (Hetram Vs. State of Rajasthan) (supra) would apply and consequently the investigation that is being done by the Station House Officer, Piparcity in FIR case No. 2 of 1985 cannot be quashed. This petition also has no force and it is hereby dismissed.