Honble RAVANI, CJ. – The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of order dated March 22, 1986 passed by the learned Magistrate, Sojat in Criminal Case No. 47/86. (2). One Mangilal, non-petitioner No. 1 herein filed a complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that the affidavit dated February 18, 1986 purporting to have been signed by him was produced in Civil Suit No. 9/86 of the court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Sojat by the petitioner herein. As alleged by non-petitioner No.1, this affidavit was forged inasmuch as it did not bear his signature but the petitioner herein had signed the same or had got it signed the same by some one else and thus a forged document was used in the civil procee- dings. When this complaint was lodged against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate ordered the police to enquire into the case under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed application requesting the trial court to re-call the order by which the police has been directed to make enquiry under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the application by impugned order dated March, 2, 1986. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition. (3) The short question which requires to be determined in this case is as to whether the provisions of Section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code are attracted or not. (4). Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, inter alia, provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence described under Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the Indian Penal Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in the proceeding in any court, except by the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. (5). In the instant case, there is no dispute that the offence alleged is one described under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also not in dispute that it is in respect of a document which has been produced or given in evidence in civil suit No. 9/86 of the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Sojat. (5). In the instant case, there is no dispute that the offence alleged is one described under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also not in dispute that it is in respect of a document which has been produced or given in evidence in civil suit No. 9/86 of the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Sojat. From the date of affidavit, i.e., February 18, 1986, it becomes evident that it is purported to have been forged during the pendency of the civil litigation. In view of this position, provision of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code are attracted. (6). As per the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra (1), the alleged offence of forgery has taken place during the pendency of the civil suit therefore the provisions of Section 195 would be attracted. (7). In view of the aforesaid position, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and ought not to have passed the order directing the police to make investigation under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code. (8). In the result, the petition is allowed. The further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 47/86 of the Court of the learned Judl. Magistrate, Sojat are quashed and are ordered to be dropped. However, it is clarified that this judgment and order shall not come in the way of the civil court before which the alleged forged affidavit is produced to proceed further in accordance with law. In short, if and when any such question is raised before the said court and request for prosecution in respect of the alleged forged document is made, the court shall decide the question in accordance with law on merits without in any way being influenced by this judgment and order. The Misc. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.