The accused petitioners (2) Subh Karan Choraria and Man Mai Jain have filed this Revision application for quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1066 c of 1988 pending in the Court of Mr. M. Z. Haque, Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati. 2. The statements/allegations in the complaint petition coupled with the statement of the complainant under section 200 of the Cr. P. C.. have focused a prima facie case to form opinion by the Magistrate, taking cognizance of the alleged offence, of having sufficient grounds for proceeding. 3. The only question for consideration is whether there was bar under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) for the Criminal Court to take cognizance of the offences under section 465/468/471 of the I. P. C. (Forgery, Forgery for cheating and using forged document as genuine) on the complaint of Sri Jadunandan Sharma, where the copy of the alleged forged document was filed/produced in the Civil Court in connection with a suit. 4. The petitioner No. 2 as an attorney for petitioner No. 1 filed a photostat copy of rent receipt dated 7. 7.88 in Title Suit No. 65 of 1988 and Misc. (J) Case No. 97 of 1988 before the Court of Munsiff No. 2, Gauhati claiming that the opposite party Jadunandan Sharma (defendant of the suit) granted the said rent receipt to the petitioner No, 1, and on the basis of that rent receipt prayed for declaration that the petitioner No. 1 (Plaintiff) is the tenant under the opposite party in respect of the suit house/holding of the Title Suit, No. 70 of 1977 and also for injunction restraining the opposite party from executing the decree of the Title Suit No. 70 of 1977. According to the complainant the said rent receipt dated 7. 7. 1988 was forged and filed the Criminal Complaint Case No. 1066 c of 1988. Learned Magistrate by order dated 20. 8. 1988 issued process against the accused petitioner with search warrant for seizure of the original rent receipt dated 7.7. 1988. 5. It may be mentioned here that the opposite party as plaintiff of Title Suit No. 70 of 1977 obtained decree for ejectment althrough upto Supreme Court against M/S. Hans Kumar Jain and others and the Title Execution Case No. 9 of 1982 is pending in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Guwahati. 6. Learned counsel Mr. 1988. 5. It may be mentioned here that the opposite party as plaintiff of Title Suit No. 70 of 1977 obtained decree for ejectment althrough upto Supreme Court against M/S. Hans Kumar Jain and others and the Title Execution Case No. 9 of 1982 is pending in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Guwahati. 6. Learned counsel Mr. O. P. Bhati for the accused petitioner submits that the document ( rent receipt), alleged to be forged had been produced/filed in the suit for the purpose of giving evidence in the proceeding of the suit/case in Civil Court, so the Court of Magistrate barred in taking cognizance except on the complaint in writing by the Court of Munsiff, Gauhati, and that the present complaint case by the opposite party/complainant was of maintainable. Mr. Bhati refers AIR 1983 SC 1053 Krishna vs. ' D. Raja Reddy in support of his submission. Mr. K. K. Bhatra, learned counsel for the opposite party-complainant submits that the original forged document (rent receipt ) had not been filed/ produced before the Court in the suit by the accused plaintiffs; and that production of a photostat copy can not be a bar for taking cognizance by Magistrate under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) on a complaint by private person. Mr. Bhatra refers the case Sushil Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1988 SC 419 in support of the submission. These submissions by the couns­el of both sides were made on 20.9.1988. 7. It was held by the Supreme Court ( AIR 1983 SC 1053 ) that a private complaint for forgery of a document, produced in Criminal Court, would not be sustainable for the bar under section 195 (1) (d) (ii) and the Court in which the forged document had been filed was competent to lodge complaint for prosecution. In that case the accused (plaintiff) in a suit produced the original contract along with an original money receipt before the Civil Court and the allegation by the complainant (1st defendant) in the criminal complaint case was that the money receipt was forged and in such circumstances where the original money receipt was produced in Court for the purpose of putting in evidence, the Supreme Court held that private complaint by the 1st defendant was a bar under section 195. The position was made very clear by the Supreme Court (A. I.R. 1988 SC 419) that where the accused plaintiff produced/filed the copy of a document in Court ( Civil ) withholding the original with him, there was no bar for a private complaint under section 195 to prosecute the accused-plaintiff for the offence of forgery of the original document of which copy was filed. 8. The wordings "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court" under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) strictly imply to the original of the document and not a copy or photostat copy of that document. The Criminal Court can take cognizance of the offence of forgery on the person producing original document, only on the complaint of the Court where the document is produced to put in evidence. A court in which a copy of alleged forged document it produced can not prosecute the person producing the same on the basis of that copy. In such circumstances, a private complainant can prosecute such a person on th3 allegation that the original document is forged and the bar for the Criminal Court under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) would not be applicable. In the instant case the accused-plaintiff (petitioners) had produced the photostat copy before the Civil Court by withholding the original with them, so there was no bar under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) for the Criminal Court to take cognizance on the complaint of the opposite party for offence under section 465/468/471 of the I.P.C. No illegality was committed by the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence under section 465/468/471 of the I.P.C. on 20.8. 1988 in the instant Case No. 1066 c of 1988 on the complaint of the opposite party and the bar under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) was not applicable. 9. In the course of hearing of this matter, on 22.9.1988, the petitioners filed an additional affidavit stating- in para 2 that they have filed/produced the original rent receipt dated 7.7.1988 before the Court of Munsiff No. 2 in the Suit/Misc. Case on that day 22.9.1988. Learned Counsel Mr. 9. In the course of hearing of this matter, on 22.9.1988, the petitioners filed an additional affidavit stating- in para 2 that they have filed/produced the original rent receipt dated 7.7.1988 before the Court of Munsiff No. 2 in the Suit/Misc. Case on that day 22.9.1988. Learned Counsel Mr. O.P. Bhati for the petitioner submits that the bar under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) in the Case No. 1066 c of 1988, filed by a private complainant (opposite party), would now be applicable as the petitioners (accused) have produced the original docu­ment before the Civil Court; and that the complaint case becomes not maintainable. Mr. S.S. Sarma, on behalf of the opposite party com­plainant submits that the Court of Magistrate took cognizance of the offences in accordance with law on 20.8.1988 and the production of forged original document on 22.9.1988 in the Court of the Munsiff No. 2 would in no way adversely effect the legality and proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 1066 c of 1988. 10. The Court of the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 208.1988 in the Case No. 1066c of 1988 when the complainant opposite party had the right to institute the case and the bar under section 195 (l)(b)(ii) was not applicable on the Court. At that stage, the original document, alleged to be a forged one, was not produced before the Civil Court and the Civil Court had no occasion nor materials before it to lodge complaint for offence of forgery etc. therefore, subsequent production of the original document on 22.9.1988 by the accused/petitioners before the Civil Court, cannot change the character and proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 1066c of 1988 in which cognizance was legally taken by the Court. Production of the original document, alleged to be forged, before the Civil Court, subsequent to the taking of cognizance of the offences of forgery etc. by the Court of Magistrate, will not adversely effect the legality of the proceedings of the Complaint Case filed by the complainant-opposite party. The proceedings in the Complaint Case No. 1066c of 1988 are maintainable under the law, because the cognizance taken by the Court, for the alleged offences, was legal on the complaint by the opposite party and was not barred under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) at the time of taking cognizance. 11. The proceedings in the Complaint Case No. 1066c of 1988 are maintainable under the law, because the cognizance taken by the Court, for the alleged offences, was legal on the complaint by the opposite party and was not barred under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) at the time of taking cognizance. 11. Production of the original rent receipt dated 7.7.1988 by the accused/petitioners in the Civil Court on 22.9.1988, was made with a malafide gesture to defeat of obstruct the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 1066 c of 1988. The Court trying the complaint case need not be confused and such action of the accused is to be ignored in the proceedings of the case. The Complaint Case No. 1066c of 1988 is maintainable and is to be proceeded with in accordance with law. 12. The cognizance taken by the Court of Magistrate, for the offences in the Case No. 1066 c of 1988, was not barred under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no legal substance for interference with the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 1066c of 1988. This Revision application is rejected. 13. Send copy of this order to the Court trying the Case No. 1066c of 1988.