JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 1. Respondent No.2 V.K. Agrawal and the petitioner are real brothers. It is averred in the F.I.R. that the respondent V.K. Agrawal had filed suit No. 7/91 against the petitioner in the court of Distt. Judge, Dholpur, for partition of the ancestral property. In the course of that suit when plaintiff V.K. Agrawal examined himself and was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner, a letter allegedly written by V.K. Agrawal to his father and throwing a light upon the subject matter of litigation was put to him and he was required to explain the contents of the letter. According to V.K. Agrawal, respondent No.2, the said letter was not written by him and that the same was a forged document. It is gathered from the F.I.R. that the said letter had already been produced in the Civil suit and formed the part of the record before the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur. It was in this background that V.K. Agrawal, respondent No.2, lodged the present F.I.R., bearing No. 365/96, at P/s. Kotwali, Dholpur, whereupon a case for offences Under section 420, 467, 471 IPC was registered against the present petitioner. This petition has been filed with the prayer that the investigation of the said case, in the background stated above, amount to abuse of the process of law and, therefore, F.I.R. No. 365/96, P/s. Kotwali, Dholpur, is required to be quashed. 2. Ordinarily this court does not interfere with the investigation, being conducted by the police in a case, until and unless such investigation appears to be motivated purely by malice leading to harassment of a citizen and amounts to abuse of the process of law. If the F.i.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, such F.I.R. can not be quashed particularly in its inception. The Investigating Agency has a right to be given liberty and independence in the matter of investigating crimes. But, if the result of the investigation is not likely to enable the Investigating Agency to file a report Under section 173, upon which a court can take cognisance of an offence, the investigation of the case would amount to an exercise in futility only. But, if the result of the investigation is not likely to enable the Investigating Agency to file a report Under section 173, upon which a court can take cognisance of an offence, the investigation of the case would amount to an exercise in futility only. Such an investigation would simply amount to abuse of the process of law, which is required to be prevented by this court in exercise of its powers Under section 482 Cr.P.C. In this behalf a reference may be made to the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 (Suppl. 1) SCC 335) and Roopam Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill ( 1995 (6) SCC 194 ) . 3. In the present case the contents of the F.I.R. themselves disclose that the document, which the informant claimed to be a forged one, formed the part of the record of judicial proceedings pending before the Distt. Judge, Dholpur in Civil Suit No. 7/91 and the said court was required to examine the genuineness or otherwise of the same. While adjudicating upon the rights of the parties to the suit before it the court of the Distt. Judge was reasonably required to consider the genuineness or otherwise of the same document, It was, therefore, for the Distt. Judge to have made his satisfaction at the time of finally adjudicating the suit before him, as to whether the letter, which was put to V.K. Agrawal in his cross-examination, was a genuine document or a forged one. In case the learned Distt. Judge came to hold the opinion that any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.PC. appeared to have been committed in respect to the document put to V.K. Agrawal in the course of his cross-examination and it was expedient in the interest of justice to make inquiry into such offence, the learned Judge, upon application of V.K. Agrawal or otherwise could have, after holding preliminary inquiry, if any, recorded a finding to that effect, made a complaint thereof in writing and sent the same to a Magistrate 1st Class having jurisdiction. 4. Here it would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 340 Cr.P.C. in extensor. Section 340 Cr.PC. reads as under: "Sec. 340 : Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. 4. Here it would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 340 Cr.P.C. in extensor. Section 340 Cr.PC. reads as under: "Sec. 340 : Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court, such court, may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and given evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised, by the court to which such former court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed, - (a) where the court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the court as the court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the court. (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195." 5. It may be appreciated that Section 340 refers to Section 195 Cr.PC. which bars the taking of cognisance by a court for those cases where the offences mentioned in that Section are committed in relation to the administration of public justice. (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195." 5. It may be appreciated that Section 340 refers to Section 195 Cr.PC. which bars the taking of cognisance by a court for those cases where the offences mentioned in that Section are committed in relation to the administration of public justice. Section 195 (1) and (2), which are relevant for the purpose, may be reads as under: "Sec. 195 : Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No court shall take cognisance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable Under section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, or (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 been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub clause (i) or sub-clause (ii). except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. (2) where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order To the Court, and upon its receipt by the court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the court of first instance has been concluded." 6. A combined reading of Section 340 and 195 Cr.PC. clearly reveals that when a document has been tendered in evidence before a court and the court is required to examine its correctness and genuineness, it is not open to any other person or authority or agency, without reference from the court concerned to enter into investigation or inquiry about the genuineness of that document. 7. The law on the subject is quite clear and needs no detailed study. Suffice it to say that the Apex Court, in the case of Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Balbir Singh (1996 Cr.L.R. SC 313) , has expressed the law on the subject in the following words : "It would thus be clear that for taking cognisance of an offence, the document, the foundation for forgery, if produced before the court or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognisance Under section 195 (i)(b)(ii) gets attracted and the criminal court is prohibited to take cognisance of offence unless a complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed Under section 340 of the Code by or on behalf of the court. The object thereby is to preserve purity of the administration of justice and to allow the parties to adduce evidence in proof of certain documents without being compelled or intimidated to proceed with the judicial process. The bar of Section 195 is to take cognisance of the offences covered thereunder." 8. The letter which was claimed to be forged by respondent No.2, when the same was put to him in the cross-examination, already formed the part of the record of the judicial proceedings before the Distt. Judge. The court of Distt. Judge was the only competent person Under section 195 Cr.PC. to file a complaint of an offence falling Under section 463 IPC in relation to the said document. A private party cannot be allowed to be vested with a right to interfere with the course of justice in relation to a document which has been produced in the course of judicial proceedings and a court is already seized of the relevant matter with regard to genuineness or otherwise of such document. It is thus clear that since the document in question had already been produced in judicial proceedings and the Distt. It is thus clear that since the document in question had already been produced in judicial proceedings and the Distt. Judge concerned had been called upon to consider its correctness and genuineness, the Investigating Agency, at the request of respondent No.2, cannot examine the genuineness of that document. 9. It is surprising that respondent No.2 V.K. Agrawal, who was holding the office of an Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge in the State judiciary thought of flouting the provisions of Section 340 r.w. Section 195 Cr.PC. This court is not prepared to assume that an officer of the experience of Sessions Judge or Addl. Sessions Judge is un-aware of the legal position, contained in Sections 340 and 195 Cr.PC. It appears that V.K. Agrawal, respondent, knowing that the question of the genuineness or otherwise of the document was pending consideration of the Distt. Judge in a judicial proceedings, interfered with the course of administration of justice by filing the F.I.R. with the police. The deliberate action of V.K. Agrawal, prima facie, amounts to contempt of court of the Distt. Judge Dholpur. The continuation of the investigation proceedings under such circumstances, amounts to abuse of the process of law, which is required to be prevented by this court. 10. In view of the above, there is no sense in permitting the police to investigate the present matter, as even a positive police report would not entitle a court to get over the bar, created by Section 195 Cr.PC. and to take cognisance of the offence Under section 463 IPC and other offences of the same kind. F.I.R. No. 365/96, registered at P/s. Kotwali, Dholpur, for offences Under section 420, 467 and 471 IPC is, therefore, quashed and the investigation, being continued on the basis of the said F.I.R., is directed to be dropped. 11. Respondent No.2 shall be asked to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt of the Court of the Distt. Judge, Dholpur, be not initiated against him. 12. The petition is allowed. *******