JUDGMENT S.S. Dani, J. - This proceeding has been filed by original accused No. 4 challenging the order dated 7.2.1990 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1988, dismissing the revision and upholding the order dated 13.11.1987 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir in Criminal Case No. 22 of 1984, rejecting the relief of dismissal of the criminal prosecution for want of necessary authority. 2. Respondent No. 2 to the application is Gopinath Ganpatrao Pensalwa the complainant in the case. Anil and Rukman are the cousins of respondent No. 2. It is alleged that, on 18.11.1983 the present petitioner (original accused No. 4) and Devidas Sakhare (original accused No. 3), in collusion with Anil and Rukman (original accused No. 1 and 2), fabricated false evidence by preparing a mutation entry in respect of Survey No. 28/1 situated at village Malkapur in Udgir Taluka. It is further alleged that, this false evidence was fabricated for the use in a judicial proceeding, namely, Regular Civil Suit No. 267 of 1982 with a view to help original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said civil litigation. The concerned mutation entry No. 66 is dated 2-10-1982. Respondent No. 2, Gopinath Ganpat then filed a criminal complaint on 18.11.1983 at Police Station Udgir and offences punishable under sections 169, 193, 465 and 466 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, were registered at Crime No. 48 of 1983. Original accused Nos. 3 and 4 are alleged to have certified the said entry in their official capacity as Naib Tahsildar and the Tahsildar. 3. During the pendency of the Criminal Prosecution in Criminal Case No. 22 of 1984 before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, the present petitioner accused No. 4 filed an application Ext. 37 on 17.10.1986. Original accused No. 3 - Devidas also filed similar application Ext. 40 on 27.11.1986. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 alleged, by these two applications, that the criminal proceedings have been filed without obtaining the necessary prior permission of the higher authorities to prosecute accused Nos. 3 and 4 as such, accused Nos. 3 and 4 are liable to be discharged under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the absence of the necessary sanction. It was also alleged by the accused Nos. 3 and 4 as such, accused Nos. 3 and 4 are liable to be discharged under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the absence of the necessary sanction. It was also alleged by the accused Nos. 3 and 4 in these two applications that, the fabricated document, namely, Mutation Entry No. 66 was subject to the decision of the Civil Court and unless the Civil Court comes to a conclusion that said mutation entry was a fabricated document, the criminal prosecution was premature. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 therefore, raised a plea under section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that, a complaint in writing has to be filed by the Civil Court. On these two ground the cognizance of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 came to be assailed. Both the accused filed these applications prior to framing of the charge. 4. On hearing both the sides, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, rejected these two applications by an order dated 13.11.1987. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 then carried the matter further in Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1988 before the Sessions Court and the Additional Sessions Judge, by an order dated 7.2.1990, dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the Magistrate. Both, the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, have held that no previous sanction was necessary in this case and as such, immunity from prosecution cannot be claimed under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is this order that is being assailed in the present proceedings by the original accused No. 4. 5. It is submitted by Shri Sabnis, the learned Advocate for the present petitioner, accused No. 4, that both the Courts have rightly decided the question under section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that, both the Courts arc right and justified in holding that, the prosecution of accused Nos. 3 and 4 was not bad in the absence of previous sanction to prosecute. The present application is, however, passed on the second point. It is submitted that, the Criminal Court was in error in taking the cognizance of this complaint in view of specific provisions of section 195(1)(b)(i)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3 and 4 was not bad in the absence of previous sanction to prosecute. The present application is, however, passed on the second point. It is submitted that, the Criminal Court was in error in taking the cognizance of this complaint in view of specific provisions of section 195(1)(b)(i)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted in this connection that, the complaint in writing in the present case can only be filed by the Court and such, the complaint at the instance of respondent No. 2 was not proper, legal and one of which the cognizance was allowed under the law. It is further submitted by Shri Sabnis, the learned advocate for the petitioner that, this point in respect of bar under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not at all considered by both the Courts below. 6. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prevents a Court from taking cognizance of an offence described in sections 463,471,475 and 476, Indian Penal 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 except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. It is, therefore, specifically clear from this mandatory provisions that the complaint in such a case has to be filed by the concerned Court, It, therefore, comes to this that, if any of the offences mentioned in sub-clause (ii) of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are alleged to have been committed then, the complaint in this respect has to be initiated and filed by the concerned Court. In this connection reliance is placed on a ruling reported in Gopalakrishna Menon v. Raja Reddy1. It has been observed and laid down thus: "The offence which is made punishable under section 467 is in respect of all offence described in section 463, Once it is accepted that section 463 defines forgery and section 467, punishes forgery of a particular category the provision in section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code would immediately be attracted and On the basis that the offence punishable under section 467 is an offence described in section 463, in the absence of a complaint by the Court the prosecution would not be maintainable. Consequently the prosecution of the persons who are alleged to have produced the forged money receipt in Civil Court, for offences punishable under sections 467 and 471 read with section 34 on the basis of a private complaint and in the absence of a complaint from the appropriate Civil Court where the alleged fraudulent money receipt has been produced, would not be sustainable be: cause if the prosecution is allowed to continue, serious prejudice would be caused to them and they would be called upon to face a trial which would not be sustainable." In the said case the prosecution was for an offence punishable under sections 467, 471 read with section 34 and it was alleged that, a forgery was committed in respect of a money receipt which was produced in a civil suit. The prosecution in such a case was held as not maintainable inasmuch as, there was no complaint by the Court in which the fraudulent money receipt was produced. 7. Coming to the facts of the case at hand, it is alleged that mutation entry No. 66 was fabricated and was further certified in order to help the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in prosecuting their Regular Civil Suit No. 267 of 1982 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udgir. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused were under sections 167, 171,465,467 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. It was, therefore, specifically pleaded by the present petitioner accused No. 4 that, inasmuch as a fabricated document is alleged to have been filed and used in Civil Suit No. 267 of 1982 and as the said suit is not concluded finally, it was the Civil Court only who was authorised to take cognizance and to file a complaint in, this respect. It was, as such, pleaded that the present prosecution in the absence of such complaint by the Civil Court was, therefore, not maintainable. This point has admittedly been not even considered and referred to by any of the Courts below. Both the Courts below have decided the matter on the point of previous sanction to prosecute. In view of the specific provisions contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii), the complaint not being by Ore concerned Court, cannot be held to be maintainable. This point has admittedly been not even considered and referred to by any of the Courts below. Both the Courts below have decided the matter on the point of previous sanction to prosecute. In view of the specific provisions contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii), the complaint not being by Ore concerned Court, cannot be held to be maintainable. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the complaint has been lodged by Gopinath Ganpatrao, the present respondent No. 2., alleging these various offences, and, there was admittedly no complaint in writing from the Court before which this alleged fabricated mutation entry is produced in Civil Suit bearing R.C.S. No. 267 of 1982. In view of this, it should have, therefore, been held by the Courts below that, the cognizance of such a private complaint was not permissible and the Court was authorised to take cognizance only on the basis of a complaint in writing by the concerned Civil Court. 8. In view of these facts and the ruling referred to above, the application Ext. 37 filed by the present petitioner, who is accused No. 4 in Criminal Case No. 22 of 1984, for discharging the accused should have been allowed by the lower Courts. Both the Courts below are, therefore, patently in error in holding that, the cognizance has been rightly taken in the case at hand in respect of the alleged offences. In the absence of any complaint in writing from the Court before whom the document has been produced in a civil litigation, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, was, therefore, incompetent to take cognizance of a private criminal complaint filed by the present respondent No. 2 in this case. The Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, also erred in rejecting the Criminal Revision Application No. 29 of 1988 and was in error in holding that, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, was authorised to take the cognizance in this case. The orders of both the Courts are, therefore, not warranted by the provisions of law and are patently illegal and improper and as such deserve to be quashed. Inasmuch as the complaint in the present case is not from the concerned Court, the cognizance cannot be taken in respect of the alleged offences and as such, the accused deserve to be discharged and the criminal proceeding against all these accused will have to be quashed and set aside. 9. Inasmuch as the complaint in the present case is not from the concerned Court, the cognizance cannot be taken in respect of the alleged offences and as such, the accused deserve to be discharged and the criminal proceeding against all these accused will have to be quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, Criminal Application No. 233 of 1990 succeeds. It is hereby ordered and directed that the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 22 of 1984 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, against all the four accused arc hereby quashed and all the accused arc ordered to be discharged. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Petition allowed. 1. A.I.R 1983 S.C. 1053.