Judgment :- The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to call for the records relating to Cr.No.XCR.31/2003 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. 2. On a perusal of the records, it comes to be known that the second respondent herein, who is the power of attorney-agent of his mother R.S.K.Dhanalakshmi, has lodged a complaint with the first respondent as against the petitioner herein, who is none other than his paternal uncle, for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that he fabricated a false document by forging the signature of the said R.S.K.Dhanalakshmi and has prepared a document of power of attorney dated 5.12.1984; that the petitioner also forged the signature of the deceased husband of the said Dhanalakshmi as a witness and by virtue of the said power of attorney, the petitioner executed an agreement of sale dated 20.1.1986 in favour of one R.T.Balasubramanian in respect of a landed property measuring 15 grounds comprised in T.S.No.7613/1 part in Block No.119 situated at Puliyur village called Muthureddy Thottam, Ramachandra Iyer Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. 3. 3. The further averments are that the said complaint was taken up for investigation by the first respondent and that the investigation is pending; that the document alleged to have been fabricated and forged, dated 5.12.1984, has been relied on by the said R.T.Balasubramanian in the suit in C.S.No.873 of 2002 filed by him before this Court as against the petitioner and the said Dhanalakshmi for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 20.1.1986 and for permanent injunction and it appears that the defacto complainant has also been served with summons in the said suit and thereafter the complaint is lodged; that the complaint is barred under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as it relates to an offence of forgery described in Section 463 and offence punishable under Section 471 IPC; that the complaint is also barred and insofar as the offences under Sections 465 and 468 IPC and Section 420 IPC are concerned, the same appears to have been included as an extension of the implication under Section 468 IPC and hence the same is also barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and that there is absolutely no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner as regards cheating and the ingredients for the offence of cheating are not even alleged. 4. The second respondent filed a counter thereby reiterating the contents of the complaint lodged with the first respondent further praying to dismiss the above criminal original petition. 5. During arguments, excepting to reiterate the points raised in the above petition and the counter, no new fact or circumstance or legality having been brought forth, this Court is of the view that tracing of the arguments of the learned counsel for both would only be a wasteful exercise and a repetition of the same facts which have already been extracted hereinbefore, and therefore, it has become necessary on the part this Court to go into the merits of the above petition in consideration of the materials placed on record. 6. 6. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be seen is that a case has been registered by the first respondent herein against the petitioner on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the second respondent herein, for an offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC on allegations that the petitioner fabricated a false document by forging the signatures of not only the mother of the defacto complainant, R.S.K.Dhanalakshmi, but also his deceased father in the preparation of the document of power of attorney dated 5.12.1984 and by making use of the same in respect of the landed property measuring 15 grounds, he sold away the same in favour of a third party and that the matter is under investigation. 7. It is the said criminal case registered under Crime No.XCR 31/2003 which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner on certain grounds as brought forth in the foregoing paragraphs, of which, the petitioner, among others, has also raised a legal plea to the effect that the complaint is barred under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. inasmuch as it relates to an offence under Sections 463, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. It is therefore relevant to extract Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., which runs as follows:- "Section 195:- Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.-- (1) No Court shall take cognizance— b)(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said 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." 8. From the above provision of law, it is clear that only 'prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants' for commission of offences against public justice and relating to documents given in evidence are barred and since the above case is neither a prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants nor relating to documents given in evidence, but for an act alleged to have been perpetrated in cheating the parents of the second respondent by forging their signatures and selling away their land, thus cheating them and committing such other related offences, the petitioner cannot take shelter under this provision of law for quashing the above F.I.R. 9. But for the above legality testified, all other pleadings and arguments since being to the effect of the facts involved in the case and since the only legal question raised also has not been accepted by this Court, only the trial is the answer regarding the factual position of the case, and therefore, this Court cannot interfere with such matters, particularly when the subject is under investigation by the first respondent. The recent judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Union of India Vs. Prakash P.Hinduja and another {IV (2003) SLT 335} is quite relevant to be quoted herein, which is to the effect:- "Thus the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the Court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the lodging of the First Information Report till the submission of the report by the officer-in-charge of police station in Court under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C., this field being exclusively reserved for the Investigating Agency." 10. Not only in meeting with the points raised, but also on a overall consideration of the facts and circumstances encircling the above petition, there is absolutely no room for any interference to be made by this Court, much less for quashing the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner on a specific complaint in which a thorough investigation is required. In result, there is no merit in the above criminal original petition and it becomes liable only to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.