Judgment :- 1. Admit. Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) taken notice for the respondent. With consent of the learned counsel on either side, the criminal original petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a complaint before the 1st respondent against respondents 2 and 3 alleging that the accused have forged certain documents and filed the same before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur in a suit for permanent injunction filed against the petitioner and the suit ended in dismissal; the accused had fabricated a lease agreement and produced the same in order to obtain an exparte order of injunction; therefore, the accused were charged under Sections 465, 467, 471, 473, 192, 193 and 196 IPC; the 1st respondent registered a case for the said offence in Crime No.1993 of 2002. But after completing the investigation, the 1st respondent referred the case as Civil in nature. On receipt of the RCS notice, the petitioner filed a protest petition before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. But the protest petition has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 02.05.2008 by observing that when the offences alleged have been committed in respect of a document produced or given as evidence in a proceeding in any court, without a complaint in writing of that Court by such officer of that Court as the Court may authorise in writing in that behalf or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate, no cognizance can be taken. Being aggrieved by that order, the above revision has been filed. 3. Since this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is against the settled principles of law, this Court is inclined to allow the above revision for the reasons stated hereunder:- Since at this stage notice to the proposed accused need not be issued as laid down by this Court in the decision reported in 1997 (1) CTC 383 (Assistant Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu vs. M/s. Premier Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., notice to the proposed accused is dispensed with. 4. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate was heard, who fairly submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is opposed to the legal principle laid down by series of decisions. 5. 4. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate was heard, who fairly submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is opposed to the legal principle laid down by series of decisions. 5. I have considered the said submissions made on either side. 6. Before going into the merits of the case, it will be useful to refer to the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Mawah and another reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101, wherein in paragraph 33, it has been held as under:- “33. 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) CrPC 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. If the case of the accused is considered in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it could be seen that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to the said decision. It is nobody’s case that the document viz., the lease agreement was forged and the offences in respect of the document was committed after the same had been produced or given as evidence in a proceeding in any Court, i.e., during the time when the document was in custodialogist. Only when such offence is committed in respect of a document, while the same is in the custody of the Court, then as per Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted and a complaint has to be filed by the Court concerned, but not otherwise. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint to file and proceed with the same in accordance with law.