JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet dated 18.9.2007 on the basis of which Criminal Case No. 1245/IX of 2007, State v. Panna Lal and others, has been registered against the accused applicants under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, I.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mathura and the order dated 24.9.2007 whereby the Presiding Officer of the Court has taken cognizance against the accused persons in that case. 2. Before dealing with the respective case of the parties it will be useful to go through their pedigree. There were two brothers Nand Kumar and Bigha Ram. Nand Kumar had two sons named Prasadi and Ram Kishore. Ram Kishore had no issue. Prasadi had three sons named Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar who are applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 in the present case. Nand Kumar’s brother Bigha Ram had three sons named Jagan Prasad, Devi Prasad and Gaya Prasad. Gaya Prasad did not have any male issue and he had one daughter only named Brahma Devi. Devi Prasad also had no issue. Jagan Prasad had a son named Mahesh Chand. 3. It is alleged in the FIR dated 13.10.04 registered on the application of Sri Mahesh Chandra Sharma (Opposite Party No. 2 in this case) that Bigha Ram was owner of the property entered in Khata No. 1 and 2 of Mohalla Hardutta, Tehsil and District Mathura. Since Devi Prasad S/o Bigha Ram had no issue he had given the land of his share (inherited from Bigha Ram) to his nephew Mahesh Chand. Since Gaya Prasad S/o Bigha Ram had no male issue, the share of Gaya Prasad in the land was also inherited by Mahesh Chand. Thus, Mahesh Chand became owner of the entire property of Bigha Ram by inheritance; and out of this property he sold its one third share to the complainant Mahesh Chand Sharma, opposite party No. 2. In the present case, vide a registered sale deed dated 6.10.1986. Mahesh Chand son of Jagan Prasad and Mahesh Chandra Sharma son of Ganga Charan Sharma started to raise construction on that land on 23.9.1996, and at that time the accused Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Raj Kumar restrained them from raising constructions and they claimed that the land had been entered in their name. Mahesh Chand son of Jagan Prasad and Mahesh Chandra Sharma son of Ganga Charan Sharma started to raise construction on that land on 23.9.1996, and at that time the accused Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Raj Kumar restrained them from raising constructions and they claimed that the land had been entered in their name. Then Mahesh Chand son of Jagan Prasad and Mahesh Chand Sharma present complainant, inspected the file of Case No. 293/14, Panna Lal and others v. Prasadi Lal and others, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act Mauja Goverdhan Brahaman Pargana Mathura in the Court of Additional Tehsildar, Mathura and then they came to know that the above named accused persons in collusion with Lekhpal Prahlad Singh of Goverdhan had got submitted a false report under Section 22 of the Land Record Manual in the Court on 18.8.1992 showing Jagan Prasad and Devi Prasad sons of Bigha Ram as dead persons and further showing that Jagan Prasad had no living issue and showing the accused applicants as heirs of Bigha Ram being grand sons of Nand Kumar brother of Bigha Ram. Lekhpal Prahlad Singh gave a false statement in the Court of Additional Tehsildar on 9.10.1992 asserting that Mahesh Chand had also died, and thus the accused-applicants obtained the mutation orders in their favour by misrepresentation of facts. Then the complainant Mahesh Chandra Sharma moved an application for setting aside that order of mutation. This application was allowed by the learned S.D.M., Mathura on 26.12.1998. Thereafter the accused persons filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Agra but that appeal was also dismissed on 18.8.2003. In this way, the accused Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Raj Kumar in collusion with Prahlad Singh, Lekhpal had hatched a conspiracy to cause damage to the complainant and had prepared fictitious documents and had given false statements in the Court of Tehsildar, Mathura alleging that Mahesh Chand son of Jagan Prasad had died, while Mahesh Chand was alive at that time. Thus the accused had committed offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, I.P.C. Hence Mahesh Chandra Sharma, the complainant moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. against the above accused persons on 13.10.2004. 4. On the above application, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the police of P.S. Goverdhan, Mathura to register a case against the accused persons and investigate the same. P.C. against the above accused persons on 13.10.2004. 4. On the above application, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the police of P.S. Goverdhan, Mathura to register a case against the accused persons and investigate the same. The police accordingly registered Case Crime No. C51 of 2004 against the accused persons, but after investigation, the police submitted the final report on 10.12.04. Aggrieved with that report, the complainant Mahesh Chandra Sharma filed the protest petition on 19.3.05. The Magistrate treated that protest petition as a complaint vide the order dated 7.6.05 and fixed a date for statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. Aggrieved with that order treating the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint, Mahesh Chandra Sharma filed Criminal Revision No. 335/05 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mathura. During pendency of this revision, the learned Magistrate dismissed the above complaint in default under Section 203, Cr.P.C. Aggrieved with that order the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 526 of 2005 Mahesh Chand Sharma v. State. 5. Criminal Revision No. 335/05 was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 9, Mathura vide judgment dated 31.10.05 and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 7.6.05 passed on the protest petition treating the same to be a complaint was set aside. Criminal Revision No. 526 of 2005 was also allowed by the same Judge on the same date and the order of dismissal of the complaint was set aside. In compliance of the aforesaid orders, the learned Magistrate again heard the complainant, on the final report submitted by the police, and he rejected the final report vide his order dated 7.7.07, and directed the concerned Station Officer to get the matter further investigated and to submit the report. 6. In compliance of the above order, the matter was further investigated, and this time the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against all the accused persons under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. On the basis of that charge-sheet, Cr. Case No. 1245/IX of 2007 was registered against the accused persons and the Magistrate took cognizance against all the accused persons vide his order dated 24.9.2007. 7. Aggrieved with the above charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on that charge-sheet, the accused applicants have filed this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 8. Case No. 1245/IX of 2007 was registered against the accused persons and the Magistrate took cognizance against all the accused persons vide his order dated 24.9.2007. 7. Aggrieved with the above charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on that charge-sheet, the accused applicants have filed this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record. It is to be seen that the allegation of the complainant opposite party No. 2 in the present case is that the accused applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 in collusion with Prahlad Singh, Lekhpal got a fictitious report under Section 22 of the Land Record Manual prepared showing Mahesh Chandra son of Jagan Prasad as dead and showing the accused applicants Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Raj Kumar as heirs of Bigha Ram, and that a false statement regarding death of Mahesh Chandra son of Jagan Prasad was given in the Court of Tehsildar while he was alive on that date. Thus, the offences alleged against the applicants are two fold. The first allegation is that a fictitious report under Section 22 of the Land Record Manual was prepared by Prahlad Singh, Lekhpal showing Mahesh Chand son of Jagan Prasad as dead with a view to give undue benefit to the accused applicants Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Raj Kumar, and the second allegation is that in support of this false report Prahlad Singh Lekhpal and the present accused applicants gave false statements before the Tehsildar deposing that Mahesh Chand son of Jagan Pal had died though he was alive at that time. Now, it is to be seen that these alleged offences were committed during the proceedings of the mutation case before the Tehsildar. Now, it is to be seen that these alleged offences were committed during the proceedings of the mutation case before the Tehsildar. So action in respect of these offences could be taken by that Court only where the offence was committed, in accordance with the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. which runs as under : (1) No Court shall take cognizance.— (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complainant in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (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, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), [except on the complaint in writing of that Court by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate]. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complainant and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint : Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinarily original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate : Provided that— (a) Where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) Where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 9. In view of the provisions of the aforesaid section action in respect of the offences alleged against the accused could be taken either by the Tehsiidar or by the Appellate Court hearing appeals against the orders of the lower Court. The Court of Tehsildar being a Revenue Court comes within the definition of the term ‘Court’ as provided in sub-section (3) of the above section. The Court of Tehsildar being a Revenue Court comes within the definition of the term ‘Court’ as provided in sub-section (3) of the above section. The procedure for taking proceedings in such cases has been enumerated in Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. which runs as under : (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to it in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,— (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint, under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint.be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,— (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court; (4) in this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in Section 195. 10. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,— (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court; (4) in this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in Section 195. 10. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid section that the complainant could move an application in this regard before the Court of Tehsildar and that Court after making necessary enquiry could pass an order for lodging a complaint against the accused persons and that complaint could be sent to the court of Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offences. The above procedure, which was the right and correct procedure in the present case, was not followed but an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. was moved for police investigation, which was barred in view of the provisions of Section 195, Cr.P.C. 11. Thus, the entire proceedings taken on the basis of the orders passed on the application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. and on the charge-sheet submitted in compliance of the orders on that application are without jurisdiction, and the learned Magistrate erred in law by taking cognizance on that charge-sheet. Hence, the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and the proceedings of the case deserve to be quashed in view of the bar of Section 195, Cr.P.C. The complainant opposite party No. 2 shall, however, be at liberty to move an application against the accused applicants under Section 340, Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court in accordance with the provisions of law. 12. The application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed and the charge sheet submitted in Criminal Case No. 1245/IX of 2007, State v. Panna Lal and others, and the order of the Magistrate dt. 24.9.07 taking cognizance thereon are set aside. However, it will be open to the complainant opposite party No. 2 to move an application before the concerned Court for taking action against the accused persons in accordance with the provisions of Section 340, Cr.P.C. ————