V.S. DAVE, J. — Gopi Chand filed a complaint in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu alleging that land measuring 15 bighas 4 biswas of khasra No.197 was in khatedari of one Khamanaram resident of village Gidania. He had two sons, namely, Gopichand, the complainant, and Sukhdeva and they became the khatedar tenants of the land and were in possession. Khama naram had one more brother Rama Kishan whose son was Har Narain and accused No.l to 5 are sons of Har Narain. They got their names entered into the land belonging to Rama Kishan but they had no connection with the land in khatedari of Khamanaram, but accused Nos. 1 to 5 entered into a conspiracy and got forged signatures of Gopi Chand and Sukhdev and on the basis of forged documents got the mutation in their favour. Even the thumb impressions had been fraudulently done. Gopi Chand and Sukhdev are alleged to have been identified by other accused persons, namely, Nauranga, Doongaram and Nagar. Thus it was alleged that all the accused Nos. 1 to 8 are guilty of commission of offence. It was mentioned in the complaint that the complainant had moved the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu who had directed his complaint to the Station House Officer, Chirawa but no satisfactory reply is being given to him, hence he is compelled to file this complaint. First the learned Magistrate sent the matter to police for answering as to what has been done in respect of the report lodged by the complainant. Police replied the court that there never registered a case and no investigation is pending there. Therefore, the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and he also summoned the original record where the documents have been filed and ultimately on 2.1.1986 took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 420, 467 and 468 IPC against the accused persons. Seven of the accused - petitioners filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu challenging the order taking cognizance and for quashing the proceedings. The ground for challenging cognizance was that since a revenue suit is pending in connection with the same documents forgery of which, it is alleged, criminal court cannot take cognizance of the offence except by a complaint to be filed by the court where the suit was pending. The ground for challenging cognizance was that since a revenue suit is pending in connection with the same documents forgery of which, it is alleged, criminal court cannot take cognizance of the offence except by a complaint to be filed by the court where the suit was pending. The said revision petition filed by the petitioners having been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, this application under S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that accused Nos. 1 to 4 and non-petitioner No. 3 as well as the complainant they are the descendants of Harjiram and the land has been divided between the parties when new khasra Nos 369, 370 and 371 were given instead of khasra No. 197 and under the new settlement operations it was on the basis of possession of the parties that the land Surveyor (Amin) prepared a note with the agreement of the parties. It was submitted that the said mutation was signed by the petitioner Moturam who was the eldest amongst petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and non-petitioner No. 3, besides Gopi Chand, Sukhdevram, Ward Panch and Dungaram Sarpanch. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant Gopi Chand and his brother Sukhdev wanted to resile from whatever has been decided and challenged the settlement operations and in the the same process two revenue proceedings had been initiated - one before the Settlement Officer, Bikaner and the other before Assistant Collector, Jhunjhunu. In the earlier proceedings settlement operations were challenged, while in the latter injunction was sought for under S- 212 of the Raj. Tenancy Act read with O. 39 R. 1 & 2 CPC and S. 151 C.P.C. It is submitted that learned Assistant Collector on the basis of the material on record held that the agriculture land bearing khasra No, 197 has been divided between the parties and the physical division had also taken place and the land which is now in new khasra No. 369 is exclusively occupied by petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and non-petitioner No. 3, hence an application for temporary injunction filed by the complaint was rejected. 1 to 4 and non-petitioner No. 3, hence an application for temporary injunction filed by the complaint was rejected. It is submitted that the present complainant has been filed in order to pressurise the petitioners else such a complaint is clearly barred by the provisions of S. 195 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that once a document has been submitted or produced in evidence in any court it is only the court where such document has been filed or produced, is competent to file a complaint for the offences mentioned in S. 195 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the case is covered by the law laid down in R.P. Jaipur Vs. State of Punjab (1) where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have classified the various records of cases where the proceedings should be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for non-petitioner No. 2 submits that the trial court as well as the re-visional court was justified in rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioners about sanction, since the objection is absolutely premature. It is submitted that a perusal of the file of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate would show that there is absolutely no material on the record on the basis of which it could be said that the documents had been produced or given in evidence in any proceedings. It is submitted that unless there is proper application and material on record to substantiate the fact law cannot be pressed into service. Law assists only when the facts alleged are established on record, unless the factual foundation is laid, it was not open to the petitioner to have raised the question of sanction under S. 195 Cr P.C. 4. I have given my consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record I find that except one photostat copy of a certified copy of a revenue record which too is not certified copy and is hardly legible there is no other material worth the name on the record of file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused persons before raising the objections under S. 195 Cr P.C. have not placed any proper application on record along with the copy of the documents which, it is alleged, were filed in any of the proceedings regarding which the allegations have been made in the complaint. The accused persons before raising the objections under S. 195 Cr P.C. have not placed any proper application on record along with the copy of the documents which, it is alleged, were filed in any of the proceedings regarding which the allegations have been made in the complaint. There is absolutely no factual foundation laid down so as to make an argument about applicability of S. 195 Cr.P.C. However I find from the file of the re-visional court that certified copies of some orders have been placed on record but they are the judgments of the courts and not the documents, forgery of which is alleged. As such neither before the trial court nor before the first appellate court is there any material on record so as to conclusively show that S. 195 Cr.P.C. shall be attracted. Confronted with such situations in my opinion learned Sessions Judge was not wrong when he left the question to be decided by the learned Magistrate after the proper material placed before him. Infact he has left the issue open and have asked the trial court to decide when a proper application with material is placed before him and in such circumstances this court would always be slow to interfere. 6. As a result of the aforesaid discussions, I find no force in this revision petition. The revision-petition is dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to move a proper application, if so advised, along with relevant material and certified copies of the documents and on his doing so the court shall decide the application in accordance with law.