( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the private complaint filed by the party alleging that the documents in question were forged and produced before the Court in evidence and such complaint was referred to the police for investigation and report by the Magistrate is liable to be quashed in view of the bar contained in S. 195 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this petition are that the 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint under S. 200 Cr. P. C. alleging that the petitioners and two others have manipulated a receipt by lifting the revenue stamp from the receipt executed by this respondent for having received some amount on earlier occasion and created a receipt to appear that the respondent has received the balance amount in the case filed by him. In that case, the respondent had claimed that the cheque issued by the petitioner and others bounced and, therefore, the complaint was lodged under the N. I. Act. It is an undisputed fact that after trial, the Court had convicted the accused persons in that case rejecting the claim of the petitioners that the respondent had received the balance amount under a receipt said to have been fabricated by the petitioners and others. The said complaint is registered in PCR 606/98 for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 420, 468, 471 r/w 120-B IPC. The learned magistrate referred the matter to the police under S. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. for investigation and report. The said order is questioned in this petition. Heard. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that if the Magistrate was of the opinion that the document was fabricated by the petitioners, he ought to have filed a complaint under S. 195 following the procedure as contemplated under S. 340 Cr. P. C. The private parties have no right to file a complaint as the same is barred under S. 195 Cr. P. C. He also further contended that S. 195 is a bar to the private parties to file the complaint. 3a. The learned S. P. P. however submitted that there is no bar for the Court to refer the matter to the police for investigation and the police have a statutory right to investigate into the offence referred under S. 156 (3) Cr. 3a. The learned S. P. P. however submitted that there is no bar for the Court to refer the matter to the police for investigation and the police have a statutory right to investigate into the offence referred under S. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. by the Court and no Court can stop the investigation by the police. ( 4 ) TO substantiate his argument the learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Gopalakrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddi, AIR 1983 SC 1053 : (1983 Cri LJ 1599 ). In that case the allegation was that money receipt was forged and produced before the Court in a civil Court. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged for offences punishable under Ss. 467 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and directed to issue process to the accused therein. The said order was questioned before the High Court. The High Court dismissed that petition which was carried to the Supreme Court wherein Their Lordships have held that when the Court has not filed the complaint in which fraudulent money receipt was produced for the offences punishable under Ss. 467, 471, 463 and S. 34 IPC. The prosecution was not maintainable. ( 5 ) HE also placed reliance on a decision reported in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1971 SC 1935 : (1971 Cri LJ 1437) wherein their Lordships have discussed the purpose and object of the Legislature in creating the bar against cognizance of private complaint in regard to the bar contained in S. 195 (1) (b) (c ). It is held that the same is both to save the accused persons from vexatious or baseless prosecutions spited by feelings 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 conclusion of the criminal Courts dealing with the private complaint. It is also held that it is for this reason that the Legislature has entrusted the Court whose proceedings had been the target of the offence of perjury to consider the expediency in the larger public interest, of a criminal trial of the guilty party. It is also held that it is for this reason that the Legislature has entrusted the Court whose proceedings had been the target of the offence of perjury to consider the expediency in the larger public interest, of a criminal trial of the guilty party. In that case also, Patel Laljibhai Somabhai instituted a civil suit No. 11/64 on the file of the Joint Civil Judge at Dholka against Vora Safakat Huseian Yusufali for the recovery of Rs. 2,000/- on the basis of a cheque dated 22-11-63. The offence in that suit was that the cheque in question and certain coupons which were produced and relied upon in the suit were forged and the suit was dismissed on Jan. 30, 1965 by the said Court. The Court did not believe the plaintiffs story about the cheque. On Nov. 16, 1965 the complainant filed the complaint to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate I Class against two accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 467 and 471 IPC. After recording their evidence, the Magistrate has proceeded to frame charge against those accused persons and tried them for the offences stated above. At that stage, the question of the necessity of complaint by Civil Court under Section 195 (1) (c) Cr. P. C. was raised in the committing Court. The Magistrate rejected that contention. Even that question also was raised before the Assistant Sessions Judge in which the trial was to be held for quashing the commitment proceedings because of bar contained in S. 195 (1) (c) as no cognizance of the offence could be taken by the Court on a private complaint. The matter was withdrawn by the Sessions Judge to his own Court who after hearing the application referred the case to the High Court with a recommendation that the commitment order be quashed. The High Court also declined the recommendation and upheld the commitment order. The said order was questioned before the Supreme Court. Their Lordships have held as above. ( 6 ) A single Judge of this Court in a decision reported in (1994) 5 Kant LJ 549, S. H. Taralagatti v. Director General, All India Radio, held :"no doubt a private party or a party to the Court proceedings cannot straightaway lodge a complaint for offences relating to documents given in evidence during trial. Section 195, Cr. ( 6 ) A single Judge of this Court in a decision reported in (1994) 5 Kant LJ 549, S. H. Taralagatti v. Director General, All India Radio, held :"no doubt a private party or a party to the Court proceedings cannot straightaway lodge a complaint for offences relating to documents given in evidence during trial. Section 195, Cr. P. C. empowers the Court before which such offences are committed or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate to lodge the complaint in writing. But this does not mean that a person who is a party to a proceeding or a private party for that matter cannot make an application requesting the Court before which the alleged offence is committed to lodge complaint against persons alleged to have committed an offence against public justice or offences relating to documents given in evidence. Section 340 (1) of Cr. P. C. lays down procedure in cases mentioned in S. 195 Cr. P. C. "emphasis supplied ( 7 ) HOWEVER, recently Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 768 , State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, had an occasion to deal with S. 195 wherein it is held as follows :"we are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court quashing the F. I. R. lodged against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, I. P. C. by them in course of the proceeding of a civil suit, on the ground that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. prohibited entertainment of and investigation into the same by the police. From a plain reading of Section 195, Cr. P. C. it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of and offence under Section 190 (1), Cr. P. C. , and it has nothing to do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into an F. I. R. which disposes a cognisable offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in Court. In other words, statutory power of the Police to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by Section 195, Cr. In other words, statutory power of the Police to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by Section 195, Cr. P. C. It is of course true that upon the charge-sheet (challan), if any, filed on completion of the investigation into such an offence, the Court would not be competent to take cognizance thereof in view of the embargo of Section 195 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. , but nothing therein deters the Court from filing a complaint for the offence on the basis of the F. I. R. (filed by the aggrieved private party) and the materials collected during investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows the procedure laid down in Section 340, Cr. P. C. The judgment of this Court in Gopal Krishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy, AIR 1983 SC 1053 , on which the High Court relied, has no manner of application to the facts of the instant case for there cognizance was taken on a private complaint even though the offence of forgery was committed in respect of a money receipt produced in the Civil Court and hence it was held that the Court could not take cognizance on such a complaint in view of Section 195 Cr. P. C. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. Appeal allowed. "from this it is clear that there is no prohibition for the private party to lodge the complaint to the Court bringing it to its notice that the accused persons have committed offences of forgery, cheating, manipulation of records, etc. and it is for the Court to lodge the complaint or refer it to the police for investigation. What is prohibited is only from taking cognizance of the offence on a private complaint filed by the parties, on the allegation of the offences prohibited under S. 195 Cr. P. C. The Magistrate is also empowered to file complaint either on the basis of the private complaint filed by the private party or on receipt of the charge sheet which is filed after due investigation by the police being referred under S. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. following the procedure as contemplated action under S. 340 Cr. P. C. The Magistrate is also empowered to file complaint either on the basis of the private complaint filed by the private party or on receipt of the charge sheet which is filed after due investigation by the police being referred under S. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. following the procedure as contemplated action under S. 340 Cr. P. C. ( 8 ) IN this case as stated above, the Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence on the complaint filed by the respondent. On the other hand, the said complaint was referred to the police for investigation and report. The investigation is still pending and the said order is questioned. From the above decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, it is clear that there is no prohibition for the Magistrate referring the matter for investigation and also for the police to investigate into the offence. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned that the prohibition is only from taking cognizance of the offence either on the private complaint filed by the parties or the charge sheet filed by the police without following the procedure as contemplated under S. 340 Cr. P. C. Therefore, the 1st contention of the petitioners that the entire order is liable to be quashed is unsustainable. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioners and other accused persons are questioning the conviction passed by the Court below in the appellate Court and the same is pending consideration before the Sessions Judge. His main grievance is that if after the investigation charge sheet is filed and the Magistrate were to file another complaint, it would greatly prejudice the case of the appellant. This argument though palatable is liable to be rejected. The appellate Court will have to consider the case before it on the materials available on record in that case. The Sessions Judge is not supposed to consider the investigation if done by the police or any complaint lodged by the magistrate consequent to the second complaint. Therefore, it can never affect the case of the petitioner in the criminal appeal pending before the Sessions Judge. The Court is yet to receive the report in regard to the investigation to be done by the police. Therefore, it can never affect the case of the petitioner in the criminal appeal pending before the Sessions Judge. The Court is yet to receive the report in regard to the investigation to be done by the police. It is also well settled law that the police are discharging their statutory duties which cannot be stopped by any Court, moreso in a case of this nature. The petitioner cannot have any grievance at this stage. On the other hand, I hold that this petition is not maintainable and the apprehension of the petitioner is unreasonable. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the petition has no merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .