JUDGMENT 1. - None appeared for the petitioners. The impugned order and the record of the lower Court were examined and the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. 2. On 3.8.1978 Bati Lal respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Addl. Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City with the allegations that in a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed, filed by the said respondent's grandfather against one Pyarey Lal and his son Ramesh in the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge, Gangapur City, Manohari petitioner had helped Bati Lal respondent's grandfather, that after the successful examination of that suit in favour of respondent's grandfather, Manohari petitioner began to demand a certain part of the land as his reward but since respondent's grandfather did not accede to such an unjust demand, Manohari petitioner, in connivance with other petitioners, made a false bond or pronote on 10.7.1976 purporting to represent that Manohari petitioner had advanced a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Bati Lal respondent as loan and on the basis of such false document filed an application in the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge, Gangapur City under the provisions of Rajasthan Debt Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of Rs. 25,000/-. The said application was reported to be still pending before the Debt Relief Court when the criminal complaint was filed by Bati Lal respondent against the petitioner. The alleged false document was also stated to have been filed in the Debt Relief Court in the course of the proceedings before that Court. The complaint was forwarded for investigation to the Dy. S.P. Gangapur City who, in turn, directed the SHO Police Station Gangapur City for registering a case for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, IPC and holding investigation according to law. The SHO registered Crime No. 264/78 under sections 420, 468, 471, IPC. 3. In the course of the investigation of the case so registered on the complaint of Bati Lal respondent against the petitioners the SHO appears to have approached the Debt Relief Court to hand over the original alleged false document to him for comparison of Manohari petitioners signatures thereon with his admitted signatures. The Debt Relief Court rejected the prayer of the SHO who thereupon submitted a Final Report No. 176/78 to the Magistrate. 4. The Debt Relief Court rejected the prayer of the SHO who thereupon submitted a Final Report No. 176/78 to the Magistrate. 4. While the Final Report was still pending for the orders of the learned Magistrate Bati Lal respondent produced the copy of the report dated 4.8.1979 of Sh. B.B. Kashyap, Finger Prints and Handwriting Expert. That copy had been obtained from the record of Debt Relief Case No. 32/77 pending in the Debt Relief Court between the parties. On perusal of the report of the expert the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences under sections 420, 468 & 471 rule with Section 120-B IPC on 9.8.1979 and summoned the petitioner as accused thereof. The petitioners challenged that order by filing Revision Petition No. 41/1979 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City but the application was dismissed on 9.7.1980 on the ground that the order sought to be revised under section 397 Criminal procedure code was an interlocutory order against which a revision was barred under section 397(2) Criminal Procedure code. On the dismissal of their revision application on 9.7.1980 the petitioners moved an application before the trial Magistrate on 19.7.1986 contending therein that in view of the specific bar under section 195(2) Criminal Procedure Code the very foundation of their prosecution was infirm and bad in law. By his impugned order dated 18.11.1988 the learned Magistrate rejected petitioners said application mainly on the ground that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 9.7.1980, had already confirmed the order dated 9.8.1979 taking cognizance of offences and summoning the petitioners as accused. Hence, this petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure code. On examination of the record of the Court of the learned Magistrate it is found that on 30.10.1990 the petitioners had informed the learned Magistrate that by his order dated 22.8.1990 the Debt Relief Court had approved of the genuine character of the document which was made the basis of the prosecution of the petitioners in this case. A certified copy of such order is available on the record of the lower Court and has been gone through by me. Arguments on the application were heard on 29.11.1990 but the same was disposed of by stating that since a revision application against the order of the Debt Relief Act was reportedly pending before the higher Court the decision of the Revisional Court be awaited. Arguments on the application were heard on 29.11.1990 but the same was disposed of by stating that since a revision application against the order of the Debt Relief Act was reportedly pending before the higher Court the decision of the Revisional Court be awaited. The hearing of the case was adjourned to 7.6.1991 and, therefore, there is no record of any further proceedings in the case, presumably due to the fact that the record of the lower Court was requisitioned in this Court. Sections 195 & 340 Criminal Procedure code, which are relevant for our study, read as under: "Section 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 (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC (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 IPC (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-Cl. (i) or sub-Cl. (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 Cl. (i) or sub-Cl. (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 Cl. (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. (3) In Cl. (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of Cl. (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate: Provided (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate: (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.] Section 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 Cl. (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the 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 give 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. A combined reading of Sections 195 & 340 Criminal Procedure Code shows that they deal with and provide for the prosecutions for the offences, inter cilia, relating to documents produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. In the matter of prosecutions relating to such documents Section 195 bars the jurisdiction of a Court of taking cognizance of the offences enumerated therein except on the complaint in writing of that Court before which such document is produced or given in the proceedings before it or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. The object behind these provisions obviously is to stop private persons from prosecuting their adversaries in respect of commission of offences relating to such documents which have been produced or given in proceedings before a Court. The object behind these provisions obviously is to stop private persons from prosecuting their adversaries in respect of commission of offences relating to such documents which have been produced or given in proceedings before a Court. It is a matter of common knowledge and the day in and day out experience of criminal litigation in Courts, initiated private complaints, would bear testimony to it, that more often than not private prosecutions are more likely inspired by wreaking vengeance and to feed avenging spirit. In the administration of criminal justice if the party wronged is given the charge of avenging prosecutions of offences in relation to such documents which have been produced or given in evidence in proceedings held or being held in a Court the avenging spirit and over-eagerness produced by such spirit predominate in obtaining convictions thus adversely affecting the very fabric of the system of dispensation of criminal justice in such cases. It is, therefore, necessary in such cases that the Court concerned before whom the document has been produced or given in evidence in the proceedings before it and the genuineness or otherwise of such document has been or is going to be examined by that Court, be vested with the discretion for deciding whether a prosecution is necessary or not. Since the offences enumerated in Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code affect not only the dignity and prestige of Courts concerned but also the majesty of law and the faith of the people in judicial system, it is inexpedient to allow the prosecutions for such offences to the discretion of the private persons or to become the sport to satisfy their personal passions at their will. The responsibility for prosecutions under section 195 Criminal Procedure Code has, therefore, been placed entirely on public servants or Courts concerned and not left to the discretion of private individuals who consider themselves to have been wronged. If the private person feels himself wronged by the offence falling within the purview of Section 195 he may approach the Court or public servant before whom the matter relating to that offence with regard to a document produced or given in evidence is pending. It is altogether a different matter if criminal proceedings have been initiated before initiation of proceedings before a Court or appropriate public servant and the document has already been produced or given in evidence before them. It is altogether a different matter if criminal proceedings have been initiated before initiation of proceedings before a Court or appropriate public servant and the document has already been produced or given in evidence before them. But where the Courts or public servants has considered or is yet to consider the genuineness or otherwise of the document produced or given in evidence in the proceedings held or still pending before it permitting simultaneous criminal proceedings at the instance of private person would seriously affect the very system of administration of justice. Private prosecutions in violation of the provisions contained in Sections 195/340 Criminal Procedure Code should, therefore, not be encouraged by criminal Courts. 6. The words "in or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court" used in the language of Cl. (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 are wide enough to embrace within their fold even proceedings in contemplation and should, therefore, not be construed narrowly. An offence of the nature mentioned in Section 195, if committed in or relation to proceedings in the trial Court is also to be considered to have been considered in relation to the appellate or revisional Courts as well. Similarly, as explained in sub-section (3), the word "Court" has also been used in a wider sense and would include any Court empowered with a particular matter and constituted under a statute Central or State. A Debt Relief Court is the creature of the Rajasthan Agriculturist Indebtedness Relief Act, 1963 empowered to deal with the matters relating to agricultural indebtedness in Rajasthan. 7. Equally important are the words "in respect of a document produced or given in evidence" occurring in the language of sub-Cl. (ii) of Cl. (b) of Section 195(1). They suggest that the offence must be committed in respect of a document which is produced or is given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court. The word "produced" will cover every document actually filed or placed before the Court for the purpose of being tendered in evidence or for some other purpose. The words "given in evidence" mean actually tendering the document for the purpose of being read in evidence by the Court for or against the existence of a fact in issue. 8. The word "produced" will cover every document actually filed or placed before the Court for the purpose of being tendered in evidence or for some other purpose. The words "given in evidence" mean actually tendering the document for the purpose of being read in evidence by the Court for or against the existence of a fact in issue. 8. Section 340 provides for the procedure of putting the machinery of law into motion for punishing offences falling within the net of Section 195(1)(b) Criminal Procedure code This section again carves out an exception to the general rule that any person can lodge complaint for any offence. Complaints for offences falling within the ambit of Section 195 can be filed by public servants or the Courts concerned, as the case may be. Of course, for filing complaints in respect of offences contemplated by Section 195(1)(b) the Court may act suo moto or upon an application made to it in that behalf. But before acting suo moto or upon an application in that behalf the Court has to record a finding to the effect that an offence of the nature mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) appears to have been committed and that in order to eradicate the evil of perjury it is expedient in the interest of justice to file the complaint against the offender. For that purpose the Court may, if it thinks it necessary to do so, hold a preliminary enquiry also. 9. It is thus quite clear that for launching prosecutions for offences falling under section 195(1)(b) complaint by the Court concerned only can be competent. A private person, who might have felt wronged by a document, cannot file a complaint in respect to such document if it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court. 10. In the instant case the document which was claimed to be false and in respect of which offences under sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC were alleged to have been committed had not only been produced and given in evidence in the proceedings in the Debt Relief Court but the genuine character thereof was approved of by that Court. In the instant case the document which was claimed to be false and in respect of which offences under sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC were alleged to have been committed had not only been produced and given in evidence in the proceedings in the Debt Relief Court but the genuine character thereof was approved of by that Court. Once that document had been produced or given in evidence in the proceedings in the Debt Relief Court, Gangapur City before filing the complaint in the present case, the said Debt Relief Court or the Court to which the said Court was subordinate, and not any private person, including the complainant Bati Lal, was competent to file the complaint. The continuance of the present proceedings instituted as they were on the complaint filed by Bati Lal. Respondent, a private person and hence invalid in law, amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court of the Magistrate concerned and are required to be set aside and dropped. 11. Criminal proceedings instituted and being continued against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed by Bati Lal in this case are quashed and the case closed. The petitioners shall stand discharged of all the offences.Petition allowed. *******