JUDGMENT 1. - Instant revision impugns the order dated November 21, 1996 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Baran whereby he took cognizance against the accused petitioner under Section 194 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code in criminal case No. 15 of 1996. 2. In order to adjudicate upon the controversy posed before me, it is necessary to set out the admitted facts at the outset. 3. A complaint under Sections 194, 195 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted by Laxmi Narain Agrawal, Advocate before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on September 24, 1996 against the petitioner Brajraj Singh who is also an Advocate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complaint and vide its order dated November 21, 1996 took cognizance of the offences under sections 195 and 211 Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioner. Against this order that the present action for filing the revision has been resorted to by the petitioner. 4. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the impugned order. 5. Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant Laxmi Narain Agrawal, raised following preliminary objections: 6. The first objection raised by Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel is that the issue of process is an interim order and not a judgment and the same can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused. In support of this argument, reliance was placed on K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and another ( AIR 1992 SC 2206 ) . Mr. Goyal, learned counsel further contended that this court in Vishnu Dutt and another v. Govind Das and others [1994 (2) RLR 643=1995 Cr. L. J. 263] indicated that order taking cognizance is an interim order and it cannot be quashed by the High Court under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Raghunadan Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently canvassed that no cognizance could have been taken by the learned Magistrate in view of the provisions contained in section 195 Cr. P.C. which recites that only the Magistrate was competent to institute complaint. Mr. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Raghunadan Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently canvassed that no cognizance could have been taken by the learned Magistrate in view of the provisions contained in section 195 Cr. P.C. which recites that only the Magistrate was competent to institute complaint. Mr. Khandelwal, learned counsel placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta ( AIR 1969 SC 355 ) , P.C. Gupta v. State and another (1974 Cr. L.J. 945) , K. Rama Krishnan v. Station House Officer, Hosdurg Police Station (1986 Cr. L.J. 392) , M.P. Sirajudeen v. M. Ganesana (1987 (1) Crimes 561) , M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur ( AIR 1967 SC 528 ) and M. Devasenapathi and another v. K. Rajamani (1984 Cr. L.J. NOC 34 (Mad.) , Liyaqat Ali Gauri v. State of Rajasthan [1995(2) RLR 652= 1995 RCC 448] , Kamalapati Trivedi v. The State of West Bengal ( AIR 1979 SC 777 ) and Dujai v. The State and another (1962 (1) Cr. L.J. 627) . 8. It is necessary at this juncture to examine the provisions contained under section 195 (1) Criminal Procedure Code which reads as under: "195. L.J. 627) . 8. It is necessary at this juncture to examine the provisions contained under section 195 (1) Criminal Procedure Code which reads as under: "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 cognizance (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 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 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 Code, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate." 9. A cursory look at section 195(1) Criminal Procedure Code demonstrates that cognizance under section 194 and 211 Indian Penal Code, cannot be taken except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Admittedly in this case the complaint Was field by the non-petitioner No.2 Laxmi Narain Agrawal, Advocate and at the time of taking cognizance it was the duty of the learned court below to consider the provisions contained in section 195 Cr.P.C. But it appears from the impugned order that the provisions contained in section 195 Criminal Procedure Code were not at all considered by the learned court below. 10. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan and others (1994(1) WLC (Raj.) 210) , had occasion to consider the provisions contained in section 195(1) Cr. P.C. While answering questions referred, the Division Bench propounded as under: "Consequently, we answer the questions referred to us as under- (1) The bar for taking cognizance of offence punishable tinder Section 463, 471, 475 and 476 Indian Penal Code as contained under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code would not operate in cases where the offence is committed before the initiation of criminal proceedings in a criminal court. In other words, the bar contained therein will not be attracted, if the offence is in respect of pre-production stage of the document in the court. (2) The bar for taking cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code is limited for offences committed in respect of documents, while such documents were produced or given in evidence and were already in custody of the court. (3) This question need not be answered being not relevant. (4) There is no difference in law in so far as deletion of the words 'by party in any proceeding' is concerned and the law still remains the same. (5) If in relation to the document while in custody of the court any offence as mentioned in section 195(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code has been committed and if the matter is examined in the civil court, both the proceedings i.e. civil and criminal, can continue, but ordinarily the criminal proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of civil proceedings in which alone the finding can be recorded whether or not the document produced in the proceedings in the court has been or has not been forged." 11. In Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh (1996 (3) Recent CR 240) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus- "11. It would thus be clear that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the foundation for forgery, if produced before the Court or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under Section 195(1) (b)(ii) gets attracted and the criminal court is prohibited to take cognizance 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 intimated to proceed with the judicial process. The bar of section 195 is to take cognizance of the offence covered thereunder:" 12. It is therefore apparent that for taking cognizance of an offence in respect of a document which is the foundation for forgery, if produced before the Court or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under section 195(1)(b)(ii) gets attracted and the criminal court is prohibited to take cognizance of offence unless a complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed. But the bar contained therein will not be attracted if the offence is pre-production stage of the document in the court. But in the instant case cognizance has been taken under section 194 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 194 Indian Penal Code reads as under : "194. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence.- Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the laws for the time being in force in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; If innocent person be thereby convicted and executed-and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment herein before described." 13. Whereas section 211 Indian Penal Code recites as under: "211. Whereas section 211 Indian Penal Code recites as under: "211. False charge of offence made with intent to injure.- Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both: and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 14. A cursory look at the above sections reveals that offence under these sections is not related to the forgery of the document. Therefore the ratio propounded in Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh (supra) is not attracted. 15. Dealing with the preliminary objections raised by Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 Laxmi Narain Agrawal, I have to see as to whether the revision is maintainable in this court or not. In K.M. Methew v. State of Kerala (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that the order issuing process is an interim order and is not a judgment and it can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused. This court also in Vishnu Dutt v. Govind Das (supra) also subscribed the view expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K.M. Methew's case and observed that the order taking cognizance which is an interim order cannot be quashed by the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P.C. 16. This court also in Vishnu Dutt v. Govind Das (supra) also subscribed the view expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K.M. Methew's case and observed that the order taking cognizance which is an interim order cannot be quashed by the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P.C. 16. In view of the ratio propounded in K.M. Methew's case, I consider it proper to direct the petitioner to file an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Baran for recalling the order of cognizance passed by the said court, who shall pass the order after appreciating the provisions contained in section 195(1) Criminal Procedure Code and decide the application. 17. The revision stands disposed of in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Baran on Feb. 6, 1998 and if the application for recalling the earlier order is filed by the petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is expected to dispose of it within 15 days from the date of filing of the said application.Revision disposed of. *******