Petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the criminal proceeding (CR No. 283c of 1987) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gauhati. Their case is that opposite party, an Executive Director of Associated Brokers Private Ltd. Ulubari, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as company) instituted a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup against them. In his complaint, the opposite party stated, inter-alia, that the first petitioner is a partnership firm and second and third petitioners are its partners. The first petitioner used to mainiain a Cash Credit Running Accounts with the company through its partners. The firm through the second and third petitioners-»used to draw finance from the company. Besides, finance was also received from the sister concerns of the company, namely, Peoji Tea Company and Durga Tea Company. The third petitioner by his letter dated 26.5.81 acknowledged that an amount of Rs 1,45,642,21 paise remained outstanding to the company. Along with the said letter, two statements of accounts were also forwarded to the company in confirmation of the aforesaid dues. The third petitioner also executed a promissory note on 26.5.81 promising to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,45,642.21 paise together with interest 12% per annum to the company on demand. However, the petitioner No, 3 in spite of demand, failed to pay the amount as promised. Therefore, the company instituted a Money Suit (MS No. 135, of 1984) in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Gauhati. Court issued summons to the petitioners as defendants. Petitioners on service of summons entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement. The petitioner! also filed a photo copy of a certificate dated 4.11,81 alleged to have been issued by the opposite party in a letter head of the company in the Court, on 17.2.87. A copy of the said certificate was also supplied to the Lawyer of the company on the same day. As per the said certificate, the opposite party confirmed that there was no outstanding balance payable by the firm. Petitioners, however, did not file the original of the said certificate in the Court. They retained the same with them. According to the opposite party, the said certificate dated 4 11.87 was a false document made by the petitioners with a view to make wrongful gain. Petitioners, however, did not file the original of the said certificate in the Court. They retained the same with them. According to the opposite party, the said certificate dated 4 11.87 was a false document made by the petitioners with a view to make wrongful gain. The opposite party also stated that the petitioners had also forged the signature and counterfeited the office seal. This was done in furtherance of their common intention to defraud the company. The aforesaid certificate was made, signed and sealed by the petitioners on 4th November, 1981 at Gauhati and thereby committed the offence of forgery with intention to make a wrongful gain and therefore, punishable under sections 467, 468, 469, 472 and 474 read with section 34 IPC. 2. The Court after taking cognizance of the offence issued process under the aforesaid sections fixing 30.4.84 for hearing. Petitioners, in due course, entered appearance and filed a petition dated 2.4.87 contending, inter alia, that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in view of section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of CrPC as the Money Suit No. 135 of 1984 was pending before the Assistant District Judge, Gauhati and the complaint case was brought out on the allegation that the forged document was filed by flic pititioner in the aforesaid money suit and therefore, the Court cannot take cognizance under the aforesaid section in view of the provisions contained in Section 195 (l)(b) (") of the CrPC. The Assistant District Judge after hearing the parties, by his order dated 15.6.87 rejected the prayer of the petitioners holding that the provisions under section 195 (1 ) (b) (ii) is not attracted in the present case. Hence, the present petition. 3. I have heard both sides. Mr. Kamar, earned counsel for the petiti­oners submitted that as per the case of the opposite party, the document was a forged one which was filed with the intention to cheat the person and in this type of case, it is the Court in which the document had been filed can make a complaint in writing or by any other Court subordinate to that Court. Mr. Mr. Kumar, further, submitted that admittedly the alleged forged document had been filed in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No. 1 and, therefore under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) the Assistant District Judge was the competent authority to institute the criminal case under the aforesaid sections and apposite party had no power or authority to institute the case in the present facts and circumstances. Hence, taking cognizance of the above offence by the Magistrate was without jurisdiction and further proceedings of the said criminal case would be an abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, this Court in exercise of the inherent power may quash the criminal proceedings. 4. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the otherhand, submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case the provisions under section 195 (1) (b) (ii) are not attracted, opposite party can make the complaint. The Magistrate had definitely jurisdiction to take cogni­sance and this cannot said to be an abuse to the process of the Court. 5. On the rival contentions of the parties, it is to be seen whether in the present case, the provisions of section 195 (1) (b) (ii, is attracted. 6. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) deals with the matters relation to contempt of lawful authority of public servant, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. 7. I quote section 195 (1) (bX") : "195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance-(b)(ii) 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 committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence-in^ proceeding in any Court ..except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate...." 8. In a criminal case ordinarily anyone may lodge a complaint to set the criminal case into motion. However, sections 195 to 199 are the exception to She general rule?. This is because of the nature and character of certain offense affecting the lawful authority of the public servant or public justice. In a criminal case ordinarily anyone may lodge a complaint to set the criminal case into motion. However, sections 195 to 199 are the exception to She general rule?. This is because of the nature and character of certain offense affecting the lawful authority of the public servant or public justice. Right under the aforesaid sections have been restricted and Courts are debarred from taking cognizance of the offence mentioned in the aforesaid sections unless and until the public servant or a Court directly concerned, themselves make the complaint. The principle underlying section 195 is that in regard to offences of contempt of lawful authority of public servants or to offences against public justice such as giving false evidence or producing forged document etc. in Court, private prosecutions are absolutely barred and only the public servants or the Courts concerned can make complaints. Therefore, section 195 prohibits the Court from taking cognizance of such offence. The purpose and object of the bar against cognizance of private complaints in regard to the offences mentioned in section 195 (I j (b) is for public purpose. In Patel Laljibhai Somabhai vs. The State of Gujrat, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1935 , Supreme Court observed that the purpose and object of the bar against cognizance of private complaints in regard to the offences mentioned in section 195 (1) (b) in both to save the accused from vexatious or baseless prosecutions spited by feelings of vindictiveness on the part of the private complaints and also to avoid confusion likely to arise on account of conflicts between findings of Courts in which forged documents are produced or false evidence is led and the conclusions of the criminal Courts dealing with the private complaint. It is for this reason that the legislature has entrusted the Courts, whose proceedings had been the target of the offence of perjury to consider the expediency in the larger public interest of a criminal trial of the guilty party. This section relates to the offences specified in Chapter 18 of the Penal Code. The word forgery is used as a general terms in section 463 IPC and teat section is referred to here in a comprehensive sense so as to include cog­nate sections and to embrace all species of forgery. This section relates to the offences specified in Chapter 18 of the Penal Code. The word forgery is used as a general terms in section 463 IPC and teat section is referred to here in a comprehensive sense so as to include cog­nate sections and to embrace all species of forgery. In section 195 (1) (b)(ii) though the ingredients of the offence in section 463, IPC have got to be satis­fied in eitablisbinga charge under section 466 and and 467 IPC each and every offence under sections 466 and 467 FPC are by themselves distinct offences be­cause some more ingredients other than those in section 463 IPC are involved, 9. Coming to the present case it is to be seen whether the ingredients of section 195 (1) (b) (ii) have been complied with. The petitioners case is that the complaint was lodged on the allegation that the petitioners have filed a photo copy of the certificate which according to the opposite party was false »ad the signature was forged. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) only requires the produ­ction of a forged document or its being given in evidence. The section refers to a document alleged to be forged and not a copy of it and so where the document in respect of which charge was laid had not itself been produced but a copy of it, in that event, the said section cannot operate as a bar to prosecution. In Sushil Kumar & others ITS. State of Haryana & others, AIR 1988 SC 419 , the Supreme Court held thus : ''..-Sub-section (1) (b) (ii) of section 195 of the Code lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in the sections mentioned therein 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". Interpreting the similar language of the corresponding provision in the earlier Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, the Privy Council in Samnukhsingh vs. The King, (1949) LR 77 Ind App 7 : (AIR 1950 PC 31). observed that by production of a copy of the allegedly forged document it cannot be said that the document itself was given in evidence. This view, as pointed out, accords with the plain grammatical meaning of the words and is also supported by the practical common sense. observed that by production of a copy of the allegedly forged document it cannot be said that the document itself was given in evidence. This view, as pointed out, accords with the plain grammatical meaning of the words and is also supported by the practical common sense. The judgment of the Judicial Committee was followed in Budha Ram TS. State of Rajasthan, (1963) 3 SCR 376 : (1963 (2) Crl LJ 698) Accordingly, we hold that since the document alleged to have been forged was not in the present case produced in the Court, the provisions of section 195 (l)(b) (ii) of the Code have no application. We, therefore, confirm the High Court's direction, but on a different ground as indica­ted. The appeal is dismissed." In the instant case only the photo copy of the document alleged to be forged was filed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that section 195 is not attracted in the present case. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition is dismissed.