JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a practising Advocate and has moved the present application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 8/97, wherein cognisance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. 2. The complaint was made by the respondent No. 2 Ram Swaroop against as many as six persons with the allegations that the petitioner, a practising Advocate had got signed certain blank papers on 2.3.1996. He had taken the complainant and one Mishridevi to the Office of Sub-Registrar, Jaipur and on the same day, some release-deed was got executed from the complainant. It is stated that the petitioner had cheated the complainant. It was the case that the petitioner Advocate had got the blank papers signed and forged the documents on the same day and also taken the complainant to the Office of Sub-Registrar on the same day. No such complaint was made immediately but the complaint was made when the brothers of the complainant started litigations. The Trial Court had recorded the statement of the complainant on 2.2.1998. The proceedings against the Sub- Registrar Davendra Kumar Sharma were dropped but took cognisance against the remaining accused including the petitioner under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Sections 195(1)(b)(ii), Criminal Procedure Code forgery of such release-deed is also a subject-matter in the judicial proceedings pending in the Civil Court and, therefore, according to him it is the Civil Court which could have filed a complaint under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code According to the Counsel, the Criminal Court can take cognisance only on complaint filed by the Civil Court and not on the basis of the private complaint. 4. 4. Section 195 provides the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence which provides that no Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code as provided namely Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceedings in any Court, (ii) any offence punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476, Indian Penal 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, coupled on the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which the Court is subordinate. 5. In my opinion, no assistance can be sought by the petitioner from the provisions of Section 195 for the offences for which the cognisance has been taken against the petitioner. The offence alleged is an independent offence and whereas Section 195 relates to the offence in respect of documents produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. 6. I find no merit in this misc. petition and the same is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******