JUDGMENT 1. - Core question that cropped up for consideration is, whether the prohibition contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Cr.RC.) would affect the statutory power of the police to investigate into an FIR which discloses a cognizable offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Cr.PC. even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in court? 2. This question emerges in the wake of circumstances set- out below- (i) Informant Savitri Devi Non-petitioner No.2 (for short the informant instituted written FIR with the Police Station Kotwali Alwar on December 8, 1997 stating therein that the petitioner on Sept. 8, 1986 had drawn a forged agreement to sell and used it in a civil suit instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alwar, on November 25, 1997 on the basis of said FIR a criminal case bearing No. 750/97 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was registered against the petitioner. (ii) Petitioner has submitted the instant petition under section 482 Cr.PC. seeking quashing of aforesaid FIR. Contention of petitioner is that he has been running a Floor Mill in the shop owned by the informant in the capacity of tenant. At one stage the informant instituted a suit for eviction against the petitioner which was dismissed, thereafter the informant decided to sell the premises to the petitioner and entered in to an agreement to sell with the petitioner on Sept. 8. 1986. Right from entering into agreement to sell, the informant has been delaying the registration of formal sale deed on one pretext or the other. Finally apprehending dishonest intention of the informant, the petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit for specific performance against the informant on November 25, 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alwar. After receiving the summons of the said civil suit the informant instituted FIR against the petitioner. 3. Mr. S.R. Bajwa learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that the impugned FIR fails to disclose the ingredients of any of the offences mentioned therein. Offence under Section 467 IPC is non-cognizable. Offence under section 120-B IPC is completely out of focus as FIR has been registered only against one person. 3. Mr. S.R. Bajwa learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that the impugned FIR fails to disclose the ingredients of any of the offences mentioned therein. Offence under Section 467 IPC is non-cognizable. Offence under section 120-B IPC is completely out of focus as FIR has been registered only against one person. So far offence under Section 471 IPC is concerned, the same if at all, could come into existence only when the alleged forged document was put into use by submitting the same in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alwar. Consequently no cognizance of an offence involving the use of forged document as a genuine document can be taken by any court unless a regular criminal complaint is filed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alwar. The impugned FIR thus is wholly without purpose. Even if the police submits charge sheet under Section 471 IPC the Court shall stand barred from taking cognizance. So far offence under Section 468 IPC is concerned, the same relates to forgery defined in section 463 IPC and as such statutory bar contained under section 195 Cr.P.C. is attracted. Offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out from the FIR. In the face of mandatory bar contained in 195(1)(b) Cr.RC. allowing FIR to remain on record will only be empty formality. No useful purpose is likely to be served by permitting the investigating agency to go ahead with investigation. Reliance was placed on Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh (1996 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 240) . 4. Refuting the contentions, on the other hand, Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the informant contended that provisions contained in section 195 Cr.RC. are not applicable in the instant case. Reliance was placed on Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another (JT 1998 (1) SC 370) and State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and another (1998 I Apex Decisions (SC) 346) . 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. There is no dispute that alleged forgery is said to have been committed on September 8, 1986 when the agreement to sell is alleged to have been executed. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. There is no dispute that alleged forgery is said to have been committed on September 8, 1986 when the agreement to sell is alleged to have been executed. There is also no dispute that on the basis of said agreement to sell, civil suit was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alwar on November 25, 1997. Thus, alleged forgery was committed before the document 'agreement to sell' was produced in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alwar. In Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another (supra) it was propounded that- "The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in section 195(1 )(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a cash where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court." 7. State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and another (supra) was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus- ''From a plain reading of section 195 Cr.R.C., it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the court intends to take cognizance of an offence under section 190 (1) Cr.RC. and it has nothing to do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into an FIR which discloses a cognizable 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, the statutory power of the police to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by section 195 Cr.RC." 8. In Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh (Supra) question of law referred to three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was ''whether the criminal Court is debarred from proceeding with the private complaint laid against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. The allegations against the appellants were that they had conspired and fabricated an agreement and forged the signatures of Smt. Dilip Kaur and on the basis thereof they attempted to claim retention of possession of the property in Civil Court. The allegations against the appellants were that they had conspired and fabricated an agreement and forged the signatures of Smt. Dilip Kaur and on the basis thereof they attempted to claim retention of possession of the property in Civil Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court after discussing various authorities, observed thus "It would thus be clear that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the foundation of forgery, if produced before the court or given in evidence, the bar 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.'' 9. Principles deducible from the above discussion may be'"summarised thus- (i) Bar contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.RC. is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court. (ii) The statutory power of the police to investigate under the provisions of Cr.P.C. is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by section 195 Cr.P.C. (iii) No court shall take cognizance of offence, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document which is the foundation of forgery, by producing said document in the court or given in evidence unless a complaint in writing is filed in accordance with section 340 Cr.RC. (Underlining is mine) 10. As already noticed by me the alleged forgery in respect of disputed agreement to sell was committed, prior to the said document was produced in court, the prohibition of section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. does not get attracted. I am also unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions of learned Senior counsel Mr. S.R. Bajwa, that the fate of investigation is sealed and that no useful purpose is likely to be served by permitting the Investigating Agency to go ahead with the investigation. As propounded by the Apex Court the statutory power of the police to investigate is not controlled by section 195 Cr.PC. It is for the investigating agency to investigate whether on the basis of the facts given in the FIR, cognizable offence is made out or not. I do not see any good reason to interfere with the statutory power of the Police Station Kotwali to investigate in to FIR No. 750/97. It is for the investigating agency to investigate whether on the basis of the facts given in the FIR, cognizable offence is made out or not. I do not see any good reason to interfere with the statutory power of the Police Station Kotwali to investigate in to FIR No. 750/97. 11. Resultatly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated January 23, 1998 issued by this court stands vacated. Record be sent back. *******