C. A. RAHIM, J. ( 1 ) A sale deed was executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and another in which applicant Nos. 3 and 4 were witnesses. The said sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar Nakur, district Saharanpur on 13-10-1993. A first information report was lodged and case Crime No. 225 of 1993 was registered on 25-10-1993 by sub registrar, respondent No. 2, on the allegation that the photograph of the respondent No. 3 on the deed was forged. There was an allegation that when the said fact was detected by him he inquired the matter from his office and on 18-10-1983 two unknown persons came at his residence and pressed for changing the said photograph in the original deed. The applicants having come to know about the case surrendered before the Court and bail was granted accordingly. After the said incident respondent No. 3, Salma Begum, aged about 75 years, filed civil suit before the Civil Judge, Saharanpur (No. 533 of 1993) wherein she prayed for the cancellation of the sale deed amongst others. Having found the possession in favour of the applicants Civil Judge, Saharanpur passed an order to maintain status quo. The applicants moved an application before the Tahsildar Nakur for mutation and the same is pending. After investigation the police has submitted charge-sheet against the applicants under Ss. 420, 468, 471, I. P. C. on 30-1-1994. Against that charge-sheet applicants have filed this application to quash the proceeding by invoking inherent power under S. 482, Cr. P. C. on the ground that cognizance is bad and that there was delay in lodging the first information report. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has submitted that when civil case has been filed for the cancellation of the deed on the ground that forgery was committed and the same is pending for consideration, Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the said allegation and decide accordingly. According to him the police has got no authority to investigate the case on the first information report lodged by the sub-registrar or that nocognizance can be taken on the so-called investigation made by the police by any Court of law. Accordingly, the first information report and the charge-sheet are liable to be quashed. According to him the police has got no authority to investigate the case on the first information report lodged by the sub-registrar or that nocognizance can be taken on the so-called investigation made by the police by any Court of law. Accordingly, the first information report and the charge-sheet are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicants has also referred the case of Ishwar Das v. Ram Das Gupta reported in 1990 (27) ACC 616 and submitted that when the alleged forged document has been produced in the suit and reliance has been placed thereon by the parties, cognizance for the offence punishable under Ss. 468/471/420, I. P. C. in respect of that document cannot be taken by any Criminal Court unless a complaint to that effect is filed by the Court in which the document was produced. In that decision it has been held that the alleged Magistrate while directing the police to persue the alleged receipt in order to find out whether or not it has been executed by the opposite party No. 1, lost sight of an important fact that the same matter is involved for the determination in the civil suit. It has also been observed that the learned Magistrate erroneously conferred that right on the police officer as shown above and, therefore, order conferring that power can in my opinion be recalled. ( 3 ) IN that suit the plaintiff produced the receipt purported to be forged before the Court in the suit brought by him for specific performance of agreement. The plaintiff filed various documents including the receipt which the respondents on coming to know reported the matter to the police and a case was started. Upon the investigation the police submitted final report to the effect that no prima facie case was made out. The respondents had filed an application for investigation which also met the same fate. Another application was filed for further examination of the disputed receipt and consequent to it an application was filed in the Civil Court for the custody of the said receipt, which was rejected by the learned Munsif Magistrate. Thereafter, an application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. was moved before, this Court to quash the criminal proceedings invoking its inherent power. ( 4 ) THE facts of the present case seems to be a different one. Thereafter, an application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. was moved before, this Court to quash the criminal proceedings invoking its inherent power. ( 4 ) THE facts of the present case seems to be a different one. In this case the Registrar found that forgery in respect of the photograph was committed by some-body and the first information report was lodged. The case was registered and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted. After the case was registered the vendor of the deed, respondent No. 3, filed a civil suit for cancellation of the deed. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that since the matter is pending in the Civil Court where it was to be determined whether any forgery was committed, the matter goes out of the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to redetermine the matter whether the charge against the accused persons for forgery was established. He has submitted that it is the Civil Court who is the only competent authority to determine the said question. The Criminal Court has got no power to deal it as provided under S. 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. It speaks that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described under Ss. 462, 463, 475 and 476, I. P. C. When such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in proceeding in any Court except on complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which the Court is subordinate. Elaborating the point learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that if, during trial, it is found by the Civil Court that such forgery has been committed that Court is competent to lodge the complaint before the police for initiation of a proceeding under the Indian Penal Code. Prior to such determination the Criminal Court cannot ipso facto take up the matter and proceed with, which is specifically barred under S. 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) IN Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab (F. B.) reported in AIR 1987 Punj and Har 19 : 1986 Cri LJ 1834 it was held that S. 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) IN Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab (F. B.) reported in AIR 1987 Punj and Har 19 : 1986 Cri LJ 1834 it was held that S. 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. is limited in its operation only to the offences mentioned in that Section if committed in regard to a document produced or given in evidence in such proceedings, while the document is in the custody of the Court. It has no application to a case in which such a document is fabricated prior to the production or given in evidence. In such case police may investigate and charge the accused. In a previous case reported in 1983 Cri LJ 713, Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab, it was held that S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) confines to forgeries committed in respect of a document during its custody by the Court or its fabrication in the course of the proceedings itself. From these decisions it appears that distinction has been made in between forgery committed prior to the Civil Court proceeding and forgery committed in respect of the document filed or given in evidence while the said document is in the custody of the Court. It appears that this aspect of the matter was not drawn to the attention of the Court while disposing of Ishwar Dass case (supra ). This decision does not indicate that the ratio of the earlier decisions referred to above was brought to the attention of the Court. There is further distinction in between Ishwar Dass case and in the instant case is to the effect that in that case civil suit was started earlier and while the defendant came to know of the dispute lodged a criminal case which also ended in final report for want of prima facie case. But in the instant case thefirst information report was lodged by the Registrar himself after detecting the forgery and thereafter civil suit was started. In view of the Full Bench decision of the punjab High Court (Harbans Singhs case) S. 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. is not applicable to a case where a document is fabricated prior to its production or given in evidence. In that case the police has got power to investigate and file the charge-sheet if a complaint is lodged before them. P. C. is not applicable to a case where a document is fabricated prior to its production or given in evidence. In that case the police has got power to investigate and file the charge-sheet if a complaint is lodged before them. The complaint-in-writing of the Court concerned where fabricated or forged document is used is mandatory when such forgery is committed in respect of a document which is in the custody of the Court. It is apparent that in the instant case it is not the case of either side. In the civil suit the Registrar is not a party. He is the registration authority and according to the Registration Act he should be the custodian of the deed registered until it is delivered to the parties. So being a custodian of a dead when he found forgery in respect of the photograph of the vendor it was his duty to inform the police and he did it. Civil suit lodged by a party concerned would not mitigate the offence of forgery and accordingly the investigation was properly held on the allegation made by the Registrar and if charge-sheet has been submitted finding prima facie case I find no illegality in it. I also do not find any reason for inherent in the matter by invoking inherent jurisdiction of Court. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY the application is dismissed. Application dismissed. .