JUDGMENT 1. - Through this petition, the petitioner seeks the quashment of the F.I.R. No. 158/99 R.S. Balotra under section 467, 468, 471, and 420 Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. Kumbhat, pointing out that the receipt alleged to have been forged was filed in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, contends that the Court only can file complaint for the offence of forgery. He files an affidavit purported to have been sworn by Nena Ram before the Notary Public on 19.8.1999 in favour of the petitioner. Relying on the cases of Kailash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan 1998 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1001 , Kartar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1985 RLR-192 and Dharam Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1985 RLR-282 he submits that the F.I.R. should be quashed. 3. Mr. Sandhu, on the other land, contends that section 195 Criminal Procedure Code does bar investigation of a case, and therefore, F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed. His further contention is that the requirement of filing of a complaint by the Court arises only when the forgery is committed after the document is filed in the Court. His further submission is that the original document has not been filed by the petitioner in the Court and there cannot be prosecution by the Court under section 195 on the basis on the copy of the document. He relies on the cases of Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar 1998 SC-1121 and Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh 1996 Cr. L.J. (SC)-2304 . 4. The Apex Court in the case of Sachida Nand (supra) has clearly held that bar against prosecution in respect of offences of forgery of a document under section 195(1)(b)(ii) is hot applicable to a case where forgery or the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court. It was clearly held that the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code applies only when the offence is alleged to have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, the authorities relied on by Mr. Kumbhat can not provide any help to the petitioner. There is thus no merit in the first contention of Mr. Kumbhat. 5. The original document has not been filed in the Court. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, the authorities relied on by Mr. Kumbhat can not provide any help to the petitioner. There is thus no merit in the first contention of Mr. Kumbhat. 5. The original document has not been filed in the Court. The Apex Court in the case of Surjit Singh (supra) has held that the bar of taking cognizance Under/section 195(1)(b)(ii)(ii) gets attracted only when original of the document is produced in the Court. In that case their lordships of the Apex Court referred to one decision of Privy Council and one decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana 1988 SC-419 . Admittedly in this case the original document has not been produced, therefore, the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable. 6. The facts of the case of Kailash Chandra (supra) are poles apart and this ruling does not help the petitioner. 7. No significance can be given to the affidavit of Nena Ram filed in this Court. It is a matter of investigation by the police as to whether Nena Ram had actually sold the tractor, trolley, 'Kalti', 'Tavi' etc. to the petitioner. 8. Even if for arguments sake it is accepted that cognizance cannot be taken by the Court on the basis of the charge-sheet that may be filed by the police, investigation of the case cannot be quashed. The petitioner is free to make submissions before the Magistrate concerned. 9. There is no merit in this petitioner. It is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******