Judgment : The accused in C.C.No. 493 of 1989 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur, has filed this petition under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. .2. Short facts are: The second respondent Lakshmi gave the private complaint against seven accused, out of whom, the petitioner Subramania Iyer alias Type Iyer was the fifth accused. The allegations in it arc briefly as follows: .The property described at the foot of the complaint belonged to the complainant’s father late Pothi Konar. As per the Will executed by him, the complainant’s mother and after her death, the complainant became entitled to the same. Since complainant’s mother is very old, with her consent, the complainant is cultivating these lands paying taxes to the Government. Since accused 6 and 7 interfered with the possession of the complainant in item No.2 her mother filed suit in O.S.No.737 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Ambasamudrum and had obtained an order of interim injunction and it is still in force. While so, as if late Pothi Konar executed a lease deed on 14. 1980 in favour of the first accused, in respect of item No.1 and as if the second accused wrote that document and had attested it and as if he had paid the lease amount and obtained receipts and as if accused 3 and 4 are the witnesses to the forged documents, the thumb impressions purported to be that of Pothi Konar, were prepared by the First accused and they were filed in O.S.No.1086 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Ambasamudrum. On the foot of the forged documents, he had obtained an order of interim injunction. These documents were prepared by the fifth accused with the assistance of the second accused and they were given to the first accused. Accused 4 and 5 had signed as witnesses in the same. On the foot of the forged documents, he had obtained an order of interim injunction. These documents were prepared by the fifth accused with the assistance of the second accused and they were given to the first accused. Accused 4 and 5 had signed as witnesses in the same. For preparing forged documents, first accused is liable to be punished under Secs.471 and 467, I.P.C. and for having abetted the same, accused 2 to 5 are liable to be punished under Secs.471, 467 and 109, I.P.C. After obtaining injunction order, accused 1, 6 and 7 trespassed into the suit property and cut and carried away the crops raised by the complainant and hence they are liable to be punished under Secs.477 and 379, I.P.C. By exercising powers under Sec.l56(3), Crl.P.C. the learned Magistrate had directed the police to investigate the case and file the report. .3. As per the aforesaid direction, case was registered in Crime No. 457 of 1987 in Valliyur, Police Station for offences under Secs.471, 467, 109, 447 and 329, I.P.C. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been laid. While so, the fifth accused Subramania Iyer alias Type Iyer filed petition praying for discharge and that was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, he filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Crl.R.C.No.39 of 1991. After having failed there also, he has come forward with this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. 4. Before proceeding further, I would like to point out that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur has framed charge against the petitioner A-5, A-6 and A-7 for offence under Sec.467 read with 109, I.P.C. 5. Mr.P.Kulandaivadivelu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, yet a petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. is maintainable. He would further submit that the offence for which charge was framed against the petitioner being one under Scc.467 read with 109, I.P.C, since it relates to alleged forged documents filed in courts only the court can lay the complaint against the accused and there is a bar under Sec. 195(1)(b)(ii) for being proceeded with otherwise. 6. I have carefully considered the submission made by Mr.Kulandaivadivelu. 6. I have carefully considered the submission made by Mr.Kulandaivadivelu. Though a revision has been filed before the Sessions Court, it is not a bar for filing a petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. for quashing the proceeding in C.C.No,493 of 1989 so far as the petitioner fifth accused is concerned, if grounds are made out for such quashing. In this regard, 1 accept the submission made by Mr. Kulandaivadivelu, so far as the applicability of Sec.l95(1)(b)(ii) is concerned, though the offence mentioned in it are Secs.463, 471, 475 and 476 I.P.C., Sec. 467, I.P.C. is also attracted inasmuch as it is only an aggravated form of offence described in Sec463, I.P.C In this regard, Mr.Kulandaivadivelu would rely upon Gopalakrishna Menon v. D.Raja Reddy, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1053. 7. I shall next pass on to consider the submission whether on the facts of this case, the prohibition imposed under Sec.l95(1)(b)(ii), Crl.P.C. is applicable. According to para.5 of the private complaint, these forged documents were prepared on 110. 1987. In para.3 of the complaint, it is stated that on the strength of these forged documents, the first accused had filed the suit in O.S.No.1086 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Ambasamudram. The above would show that the preparation of the forged documents was earlier in point of time and the filing of the suit on the strength of these forged documents was later in point of time. There was a clear time gap in between the preparation of the forged documents and the filing of the same. We have to see whether in such a case Sec.195(1)(b)(ii) is attracted. In Rafeez Ahmed Sahib v. Istiaq Ahmed, 1975 M.L.J. 326, it was held that the bar under Sec.195(1), Crl.P.C. would apply only in respect of a document forged subsequent to the initiation of proceedings in any court. In Gopalakrishna Menon v. Raja Reddy, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1053, the Apex Court had referred to its earlier ruling in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. State of Gujarat; A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1935. In it, the Apex Court had refused to interfere by holding that the alleged offences had been committed at a time when the accused was not a party to the civil proceedings. In it, the Apex Court had refused to interfere by holding that the alleged offences had been committed at a time when the accused was not a party to the civil proceedings. Thus, this ruling reiterates the point that if the offence was committed at a time when the accused was not a party to the civil proceedings, then the bar under Sec.195(1), Crl.P.C. would not apply, even though Sec.467, I.P.C. would also come within the purview of Sec.195(1), Crl.P.C. 8. In Rakkammal v. Irulappa Konar, 1988 L.W. (Crl.)225, Justice Padmini Jesudurai had held that offence committed prior to the institution of suit in a civil court would not alter the offence already committed and the criminal court’s jurisdiction is not ousted. In para.14, the learned Judge had relied upon Raghunath and others v. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1100. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that the offence relating to forgery of the sale deed through impersonation had been committed by the accused not in his Character as such party in the mutation proceedings and that, therefore, the bar under Sec.195(1)(c) would not apply. The rulings of the Apex Court have laid that if there is time gap between the time when forgery was committed and the time when civil proceedings commenced, then the bar under Sec.195(1)(b), Crl.P.C. will not apply. On the facts of this case, since there was a time gap between the two, the bar under Sec.195(1)(b)(ii), Crl.P.C. would not apply and hence I am unable to accept this submission made by Mr.Kulandaivadivelu. 9. Mr.Kulandaivadivelu, would rely upon Ram Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 1982 Crl.L.J.424. In it, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had bid as follows: “We are, therefore, of opinion that the provisions of Sec.195(1)(b)(ii) of the new Crl.P.C. apply also to cases where an offence of the nature specified in Sec.195(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal P.C. is committed prior to institution of the proceeding in which the concerned document is eventually produced or filed and that cognizance of such offences at the instance of a private complaint would be barred.” With respect, I am unable to agree with the view of the learned Judges. I am in total agreement with the view expressed by Justice Padmini Jesudurai in Rakkammal v. Irulappa Konar, 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 225. I am in total agreement with the view expressed by Justice Padmini Jesudurai in Rakkammal v. Irulappa Konar, 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 225. I am fortified in taking such a view, because otherwise a person who had committed an offence of forgery in respect of a document concerned in Sec.467, I.P.C. can make himself immune from prosecution by filing or producing it in a civil proceeding and so that bar of Sec. 195(1)(b)(ii), Crl.P.C. is applicable. For commission of offence punishable under Sec.467, I.P.C, he can always be proceeded with, once the offence was committed. 10. In view of the above, since I do not find any ground to quash the complaint at the threshold, this petition fails and shall stand dismissed.