JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant F.I.R. and other documents produced before me. 2. On July 14, 1995 Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, the informant in the present case gave an information to the officer-in-charge of P/s. Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, to the effect that the present petitioner Kailash Chander Sharma had been admitted by him as a tenant in his house situated at B-1, Janta Colony, Jaipur, in July 1993 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-, that the tenant petitioner paid rent upto September, 1993 in respect of which the informant duly issued receipts in the diary of the petitioner but thereafter the petitioner did not pay any amount towards his rental liability whereupon the informant filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner in the court of Addl. Distt. Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that on 5.7.95 the petitioner filed his written statement in the civil suit wherein he averred that he had paid rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month to the informant upto March, 1994 through one Mohan Singh. The informant further stated in the F.I.R. that he never issued any receipt of Rs. 600/- in favour of the petitioner and that the said document was a false one and dishonestly prepared by the petitioner to cause wrongful loss to the interest of the informant. On the receipt of this information the S.H.O., P/s. Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, registered crime No. 148/95 Under section 467, 468, 471 IPC and commenced investigation. 3. It was urged by Mr. K.K. Mehrishi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that from the averments made in the F.I.R. by the informant it was quite clear that the document, in respect of which offence of fabrication false document, as defined in Section 463 I.PC., is alleged to have been committed, has already been produced in the judicial proceedings, pending before the Civil Court and thus the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, was to consider the true character of that document as a false document or a genuine document. Distt. Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, was to consider the true character of that document as a false document or a genuine document. It was thus submitted that once the contents of the F.I.R. show that the Civil Court was seized of the document, which was alleged to be a false one and has to adjudicate upon the character thereof, the bar Under section 195(b) (ii) Cr.PC. stood attracted and the court of the Distt. Judge only was competent to file a complaint, if at all for any offence described in Section 463 or punishable Under section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, In support of his submission Mr. Mehrishi relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gopal Krishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy, ( AIR 1983 SC 1053 ) and Patel Lal Ji Bhai v. State of Gujarat, ( AIR 1971 SC 1935 ) besides that of this court in the case of Pramod Kumar v. State of Raj. & Anr., in S.B.Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 806/96, dated 9.9.1997 . 4. Mr. Alok Sharma, the learned counsel for the informant, however, submitted that since before filing of the document in the Civil Court on 7.8.95 the informant had already lodged the F.I.R. on 14.7.95, the investigation into the commission of offence Under sections 463, punishable Under section 467. 468 and 471 IPC was not barred by Section 195(b) (ii) Cr.PC. in the present case. In support of his contention Mr. Sharma relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mahadev Bapu Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (1994 Cr.L.J. 1389) . 5. It is evident that a civil suit for the eviction of the petitioner and recovery of arrears of rent from him had already been filed by the informant as back as on 24.1.95. On 5,7,95 the petitioner had filed his written statement and therein he had averred that he had paid rent to the informant as per receipt of Rs. 600/-, which was later on produced by him on 7.8.95. These averments clearly show that the Civil Court was to adjudicate upon the very character of the receipt of Rs. 600/- as a genuine document or otherwise. Under such circumstances when the civil court was seized of the matter and had to adjudicate upon the question of payment of Rs. 600/-, which was later on produced by him on 7.8.95. These averments clearly show that the Civil Court was to adjudicate upon the very character of the receipt of Rs. 600/- as a genuine document or otherwise. Under such circumstances when the civil court was seized of the matter and had to adjudicate upon the question of payment of Rs. 600/- by the petitioner to his land lord and in support of such contention he had relied upon a document which was to be filed by him before the civil court at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, the informant had no cause to require the Investigating Agency to inquire into the character of the document, purposed to be filed by the petitioner in the Civil Court. In the State of things the learned Addl. .Sessions Judge was required to consider the character of the receipt as a , genuine document or otherwise in order to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties to the suit and in case the learned Addl. Distt. Judge felt satisfied that the document, produced before him in the course of judicial proceedings was a , forged one, he was competent to make an inquiry into the offence, found to have been committed by a party to the proceedings before him in relation to the document produced in the course of the judicial proceedings. Section 340 Cr.PC. visualises such a situation and empowers the court to make inquiry into such offences if in the opinion of the court it is considered expedient in the interest of justice to do so. In such cases Section 195 Cr.RC. bars the taking of cognizance of the offence, committed against public justice and for offences relating to document given in evidence in judicial proceedings. In view of the specific provisions, contained in Section 195 (b)(ii) r.w. Section 340 Cr.PC. it is not open to any other person or authorities or agency, without reference from the court concerned, to enter into investigation or inquiry about the genuineness of a document, which has been produced by a party in the course of judicial proceedings. In view of the specific provisions, contained in Section 195 (b)(ii) r.w. Section 340 Cr.PC. it is not open to any other person or authorities or agency, without reference from the court concerned, to enter into investigation or inquiry about the genuineness of a document, which has been produced by a party in the course of judicial proceedings. Since the receipt, in question, made the very basis of the plea of the petitioner in the judicial proceedings and in support of the averments made by the petitioner in that behalf in his written statement, the said document was also produced at appropriate stage of the proceedings. The investigation by the police into the character of that document is not only barred by the provisions Under section 195 (b)(ii) Cr.PC. but also amounts to abuse of the process of the court. This view has been taken by this court in the case of Pramod Kumar (supra) wherein the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Balbir Singh (1995 Cr.L.R. SC 313) was relied upon. The said view gets support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Menon (supra). In the case of Patel Lalji Bhai (supra) the Apex Court made the following pertinent observations in para 10 of the report: "Broadly speaking we are inclined to agree with the reasoning of the Allahabad Full Bench in Kushal Pal Singh's case, (AIR 1931 All 443) (FB) . This is our opinion reflects the better view. The purpose and object of the Legislature in creating the bar against cognizance of private complaints in regard to the offences mentioned in Section 195(1) (b) and (c) is both to have the accused person from vexatious or baseless prosecutions inspired by feeling of vindictiveness on the part of the private complainants to harass their opponents and also to avoid confusion which is likely to arise on account of conflicts between findings of the 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 as suggested earlier, that the Legislature has entrusted the court, whose proceedings had been the target of the offence of perjury to consider the expediency in the large public interest of a criminal trial of the guilty party." 6. It is for this reason as suggested earlier, that the Legislature has entrusted the court, whose proceedings had been the target of the offence of perjury to consider the expediency in the large public interest of a criminal trial of the guilty party." 6. The above observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court settles the issue, presently before me, in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the F.I.R. in question is required to be quashed and investigation dropped. 7. In the case of Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan (supra) the offence was alleged to have been committed in respect of documents produced or given in evidence in the proceedings in the revenue court and since that revenue court had not filed any complaint a complaint was filed subsequently. The High Court had held that no complaint was necessary by the court concerned either in the old code or in the new code. The contention that the absence of complaint by revenue court was a bar for taking cognizance by the criminal court in respect of the offences of perjury, which was committed even before the start of the proceedings before the revenue court was therefore, not sustained. 8. Such are not facts in the present case. The ratio-deci- den-di of this decision, therefore, affords no help to the informant. 9. In the result, F.I.R. No. 148/95 registered at P/s. Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur for offences Under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC at the instance of Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Adv., R/o J-114, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, against Kailash Chandra Sharma, petitioner tenant in B-1, Janta Colony, Jaipur is hereby quashed and the investigation is directed to be dropped.The petition stands allowed.> Petition allowed. *******