JUDGMENT P. K, Sarin, J. This application is for quashing the order dated 12.1.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. C-636/91, whereby the learned Magistrate has ordered for issuance of summons to the petitioners for trial under sections 120 B, 420, 465, 468 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint (copy at Annexure-l) against the present petitioners alleging that in Consolidation Case No. 234 of 1977 under section 10(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') they have obtained order from the Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect of his land comprising survey plots number as given in the complaint by producing fraudulent and forged documents before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It was further stated in the complaint that the opposite party no.2 had already filed appeal against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the allegations in respect of production of forged document before the Assistant Consolidation Officer have been made and in view of section 195(1) (b) no court shall take cognizance for the offences punishable under section 463 or under section 471 or Section 475 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the court where document was produced or given in evidence in a proceeding before it. It is contended that in view of the said bar under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance and could not have ordered for issuance of summons to the petitioners to stand trial in respect of the offences relating to the alleged forged documents, which were produced before the consolidation court. It is submitted that Consolidation Officer while acting under the Act functions as a court as contemplated under section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Md. Illias vs. Md. Zulaffakar (1986 PLJR 442). 4. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Md. Illias vs. Md. Zulaffakar (1986 PLJR 442). 4. It is further contended that no offences under Section 420 or 423 of the Indian Penal Code are made out and similarly no offence under section 120 B of the Indian Penal code is made out by the allegations made in the complaint. It is contended that in this view the court could not have issued summons to the petitioners for standing trial for those sections as well. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has contended that a complaint was rightly filed, as the petitioners produced forged documents before the Consolidation authority and that the Consolidation officer was not acting as a court. 6. In view of the decision in the case of Md. illias v. Md. Zulafiakar (supra) the Consolidation Officer while acting under the Act acts as a court as contemplated under Section 195 (1) (b) of the code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no, 2 to the contrary does not appear to be tenable. The allegations are regarding production of forged documents before the Consolidation Officer and obtained favourable order on the basis of such documents. According to the averments made in the complaint, opposite party no. 2 has filed an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation officer. If appeal has been filed, the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation officer may be scrutinized and examined by the appellate court and if the appellate court comes to a conclusion that the petitioners had filed foraged documents or have committed any offence as mentioned in Section 195 (1) (b) of the code of Criminal Procedure, the appellate court may, if it so desires, file complaint as contemplated by Section 195 of the Cr. P. C. provided the appellate court comes to the conclusion that forged documents were produced by the petitioners. We are not concerned with that aspect here in the present proceedings where the legality of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate has only to be examined. As already stated above, opposite party no. P. C. provided the appellate court comes to the conclusion that forged documents were produced by the petitioners. We are not concerned with that aspect here in the present proceedings where the legality of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate has only to be examined. As already stated above, opposite party no. 2 could not have filed complaint and the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance in respect of forged documents produced before the consolidation authority in view of the bar created by Section 195 (1) (b) of the Cr. P. C. As regards the offences under Sections 420, 423 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, those offences do not appear to have been made out by the allegations made in the complaint. The entire allegations are that the petitioners by making forge documents and producing the same before the Consolidation officer, obtained favorable order in their favour. It does not make out any offence punishable under Sections 420, 423 or 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In these circumstances, the impugned order paned by the learned Magistrate for issuance of processes against the petitioners to stand trial cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.1.1993 and the subsequent proceedings on its basis against the petitioners are hereby quashed.