JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann. J.:- The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 94 dated 2.10.2004, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Kot Bhai, District Muktsar. 2. The FIR was registered on the basis of an application submitted by Chhinder Pal Kaur -respondent No.2, wherein she alleged that a civil suit was filed by her mother-Balbir Kaur against Jaswinder Kaur and Gurbachan Singh, petitioners and others. All of them appeared in the Court through their counsel and filed written statement, in which they took a stand that Balbir Kaur was not married with Gurbachan Singh, according to Hindu rites and rituals, nor Chhinder Pal Kaur and Mohinder Pal Kaur were daughters of Gurbachan Singh. The accused had filed such a written statement in order to deprive her and her sister Mohinder Pal Kaur from their rights and concealed the true facts from the Court. In the said civil suit, Bakhtaur Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Jaswinder Kaur petitioners appeared as witnesses and deposed falsely that Balbir Kaur was not the wife of Gurbachan Singh, nor Chhinder Pal Kaur and Mohinder Pal Kaur were the daughters of Gurbachan Singh. Although, the said suit was dismissed, yet an appeal was filed in which the counsel for Gurbachan Singh admitted that Chhinder Pal Kaur and Mohinder Pal Kaur were the daughters of Gurbachan Singh and they were necessary to be impleaded as the plaintiffs. 3. The plea of the petitioners while seeking quashing of the FIR, primarily, is that in view of the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C, criminal proceedings could not be initiated unless a complaint was made by the Court because offence related to the proceedings in the Court. 4. The stand of the respondents is that the bar provided under Section 195 Cr.P.C was not applicable as the criminal conspiracy was hatched and false documents were prepared outside the Court. It was not a case where forgery was committed qua the documents already in possession of the Court. 5. 4. The stand of the respondents is that the bar provided under Section 195 Cr.P.C was not applicable as the criminal conspiracy was hatched and false documents were prepared outside the Court. It was not a case where forgery was committed qua the documents already in possession of the Court. 5. The controversy in the present case is already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Sachida Nand Singh vs State of Bihar, 1998 (1) RCR (Criminal) 823, wherein it was held that the bar contained in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Cr.P.C. was not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before it was produced in a Court. While doing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paras 19 to 24 as under: “19. Shri K.B. Sinha, learned senior counsel contended that the position which held the field pursuant to Patel Laljibhai Somabha is case decision has since been changed with the enactment of the new Code because of absence of the words (“by a party to any proceeding in any court”) in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents contended that the only object for deletion of those words was to advance the protection of the section to other persons as well who might not have been parties to the litigation. 20.A scrutiny of the sub-clause in juxtaposition with the corresponding provision in old Code dissuades us from attaching any significance to the deletion of the words (“by a party to any proceeding in any court” ) except to the extent that the deletion was intended to stretch the advantage to non-parties to the proceedings as well. 21. The Law Commission in its 41st Report has observed in paragraph 15.39 as follows: “15.39. The purpose of the section is to bar private prosecutions where the course of justice is sought to be perverted leaving to the Court itself to uphold its dignity and prestige. On principle there is no reason why the safeguard in clause (c) should not apply to offences committed by witnesses also. Witnesses need as much protection against vexatious prosecutions as parties and the court should have as much control over the acts of witnesses that enter as a component of a judicial proceeding, as over the acts of parties. On principle there is no reason why the safeguard in clause (c) should not apply to offences committed by witnesses also. Witnesses need as much protection against vexatious prosecutions as parties and the court should have as much control over the acts of witnesses that enter as a component of a judicial proceeding, as over the acts of parties. If, therefore, the provisions of clause (c) are extended to witnesses, the extension would be in conformity with the broad principle which forms the basis of S.195.” 22. The above reasons of the Law Commission eventually led to the parliamentary exercise in deleting the words referred to earlier would unmistakably point to the legislative object in doing so. 23. The same issue came up before a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, particularly in the light of change made in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code vis-a-vis the corresponding provision in the old Code. In Harbans Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1986 (2) R.C.R (Crl.) 481 : AIR 1987 Punjab and Haryana 19, the Full Bench observed that deletion of those words would not help to take a wider view as the restrictive view is more in consonance with the scheme of the Code. We have noticed that Karnataka High Court in Gobindaraju v. State of Karnataka, 1995 Crl.L.J. 1491 and the Bombay High Court in Alka Bhagwant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, ILR 1986 (Bombay) 64 have also adopted the same view. 24. 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 case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.” 6. The view taken in the aforementioned judgment was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 178, when it observed in para 25 as under: “In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.” 7. In view of the above, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 8. However, nothing stated above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ———————————