Petitioner a public servant being a Psychiatrist in service under the State Government has sought for an order quashing Annexure ‘a’ F.I.R and all proceedings taken pursuant thereto, seeking protection of the inhibition under Sec.195(1)(b)(ii), Crl.P.C. 2. The question of legal importance for consideration in the case is as to what is the alternate remedy available to the aggrieved party when the offender seeks shelter from prosecution under the bar provided in Sec.195(1)(b)(ii) in the absence of a complaint filed under Sec.340, Crl.P.C., by the Courts concerned . 3. The petitioner is the second accused in Annexure ‘A’ F.I.R. in Crime No.602 of 2002 of Thalassery Police Station registered for offences under Secs.465, 466, 468 and 471, , I.P.C., read with Sec.34 thereof. The investigation in the case is already over and the police have submitted final report also in the case.The case has been registered also on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Courts, Thalassery as C.C.No. 515 of 2002. 4. [Malayalam matter omitted - Ed.7]. 5. According to the petitioner the matter could not have been investigated into by the police and final report should not have been submitted before the Magistrate and that in any event the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the matter as the offences are alleged to have been committed in relation to documents given in evidence in O.S.No.232 of 1998 and O.S.No.336 of 1999 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thalassery. 6. The relevant provisions of Sec.195,Crl.P.C., reads: “195 (1). No Cours shall take cognizance — (a)(i) (ii) (iii) (b)(i) (ii) of any offence described in Sec.463, or punishable under Sec.471, Sec.475 or Sec.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, or (iii) except on the complaint in writing of that Court,or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.” 7. The Sub Judge, Thalassery while disposing of the case by a common judgment in both the above suits only observed that Exs.B-9, B-10 and B-11 documents which are prescriptions issued by the petitioner/second accused, a Psychiatrist are prima facie forged and fabricated in collusion with the first accused with a view to furnish false evidence before Court to support the claim of the first accused and left the matter observing as follows: “It is for the other parties interested to probe deeper and work out the position further and find out what was the corresponding telephone number of D.W.2 in 1992 and when all that number of 1992 had undergone changes till 2000 and to take appropriate legal action both civil and criminal or otherwise as they choose fit in the matter.” 8. It is probably on account of such an observation in the judgment that the first plaintiff in O.S.No.232 of 1998 who was the first defendant in O.S.No 336 of 1999 has given Annexure ‘A’ first information statement and caused the crime registered at the Thalassery police station. It is the contention of the petitioner that in view of the inhibition contained in Sec.195(1) (b)(ii), Crl.P.C., the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the final report submitted before him and that therefore Annexure ‘A’ F.I.R. and proceedings pursuant thereto culminating in Annexure ‘B’ final report which has been taken cognizance of by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery has to be quashed. 9. It is now well-settled that Sec.195(1)(b) is mandatory. Sec.195(1)(b) and Sec.340 shall be read together. Sec.340 lays down the procedure as to how the bar imposed by Sec.195(1)(b) is to be removed. The question whether the bar under Sec.195(1) (b)(ii) operates in respect of a document forged prior to filing thereof in the Court is seen submitted to be placed for consideration before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court vide record of proceedings reported in Balasubramaniam v. State, (2002)7 S.C.C. 649 . 10. Courts cannot view offences of this nature in manner when prima facie it is satisfied that false evidence has been let in by forging document for the purpose of the case pending before it. 10. Courts cannot view offences of this nature in manner when prima facie it is satisfied that false evidence has been let in by forging document for the purpose of the case pending before it. The Apex Court in Narayanadas v. State of Karnataka and others,A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 555, has set aside the order of the Karnataka High Court quashing a First Information Report registered on a similar complaint and has held referring also to the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal,(1992)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 335, that the provision of Secs.195 and 340, Crl.P.C., do not circumscribe the power of the police to investigate into the crime of fabricating false evidence; that the inhibition in Sec.195, Crl.P.C., is applicable only on the investigation being completed and that on the basis of the first information report and materials collected during investigation the Court could very well file a complaint under Sec.340, CRl.P.C., in the instant case therefore , the de facto complainant is entitled to file an apilication under Sec.340, Crl.P.C., on the basis of Annexure ‘A’ First Information Report and the materials collected during investigation in the case.But in view of the inhibition in Sec.195(1)(b)(ii), Crl.P.C., this Court is constrained to quash Annexure ‘B’ final report and proceedings taken on the basis thereof by the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thalassery. 11. The contention incidentally urged that sanction under Sec.197(1) was also to be obtained as the petitioner is a Government Servant is however not tenable as the offence alleged to have been committed are not such as are possible to be committed by the petitioner/ 2nd accused while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. In the result, while quashing Annexure ‘B’ final report and all proceedings taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery on the basis thereof, the de facto complainant in Annexure ‘A’ F.I.R. is permitted to make an application under Sec.340, Crl.P.C., before the appropriate Court for appropriate steps being taken. The prayer to quash annexure ‘A’ F.I.R. is rejected. The criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of as above.