JUDGMENT (ORAL) A.A. Desai, J. - Respondent No.2 Chandra Ramchand Chawla lodged a complaint against the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193,195,196,199,200,204, 211 and 504 read with Sections 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate directed to issue process. This has been questioned in this revision application by the petitioner (original accused No.3) mainly on the ground that from the averment in the complaint no prima-facie case is made out to take cognizance. Mr. Gursahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (original accused No. 3) made a submission that looking to the entire complaint there is no role or act attributed to this accused No.3 and as such, according to the learned counsel, the issuing of process by the learned Magistrate is per se illegal. I find considerable force in the submission as made. 2. Mrs. Pingulkar learned counsel appearing for the State supports the petitioner. Mr. Walawalkar appearing for respondent No.3 also renders support to the contention. However, none appears for respondent No.2 (original complainant) though served. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the complaint. It is revealed that the parties had a business relation. According to the complainant some time in December 1986 accused No.1 came to his residence along with accused No.3 and threatened him with dire consequences. It is further averred that accused NO.1 also proclaimed that he would take help of accused No.3 who is a retired CBI officer. In these averments it is not stated specifically that accused No.3 - the petitioner - also joined hands with accused No.1 in giving threats to the complainant - Original respondent No.2. It is further averred that some time in the first week of March 1987 accused No.2 came to the complainant and informed him that accused Nos. 1 and 3 were insisting upon him to make a false statement in his favour. He has further stated to the complainant that these accused persons No.1 and 3 were forcing him to make another affidavit so as to revoke the earlier one. These averments also do not attribute any role. Even otherwise what is alleged in the complaint is a role played by accused No.2 who is merely being pressurized by accused Nos. 1 and 3. These averments also do not attribute any role. Even otherwise what is alleged in the complaint is a role played by accused No.2 who is merely being pressurized by accused Nos. 1 and 3. These averments, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel, do not constitute any offence as against accused No.3 who is the petitioner before me. 4. It is then alleged that on 6th March 1987 accused No. 2 executed another affidavit. The said affidavit was prepared at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 3 and it was attested by accused No.3 as a true copy. This affidavit, according to the complaint was submitted to the CID Branch and on the strength of this affidavit the complainant was arrested on 15th May 1987. Taking totality of the averments the complaint then submits that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have committed an offence of fabricating and giving false evidence and criminal intimation. Mrs. Pingulkar appearing for the State has rightly submitted that the alleged documents were produced in a judicial proceeding, and that the authority before whom such documents are presented and who are activated on the strength of such documents can take action if the documents are proved to be false or fabricated. In this connection she has invited my attention to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I find the submission to be well merited. The learned Magistrate completely failed to scrutinize averments as made and issued the process without due verification. From the above discussion it is apparent that no prima facie case has been made out so far as accused No.3 is concerned to constitute an offence as referred to in the complaint. Issuing of process was, therefore, totally unwarranted particularly when averments in the complaint, as disclosed, do not involve accused No.3 directly either in threatening or furnishing and/or creating a fabricated document. The order of the learned Magistrate to the extent of issuing process against accused No. 3, therefore, cannot be sustained. 5. In the result the revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 21st August 1987 to the extent of issuing process against accused No.3 is quashed and set aside. Petition allowed.