JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have submitted this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR No.65/2004. 3. It appears from the facts that a complaint was submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Merta city by respondent no.2 Ram Narain against 7 persons, who are petitioners in this petition. The learned Magistrate of the court below sent the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station, upon which on 10th March,2004 a case was registered under Sections 420, 120B, 465, 467 and 471 IPC 4. According to the petitioners that from the complaint itself it is clear that due to long enmity running since last 40 years, there were some dispute in relation to claim over immovable property and in that sequence, the proceedings were taken in the courts wherein according to the complainant several documents and even the Vakalatnama with forged signatures were filed by the petitioners-accused-persons and, therefore, the accused-persons have committed offence punishable under Sections 463, 471 and 475 IPC. It is submitted that in view of bar under Section 195(i)(a)(ii) no complaint is maintainable if it is not filed by the court with respect to any offence under Section 463, 471, 475 or under Section 476 IPC when the offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Dharam Chand v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1985 RLW 239 wherein this Court held that no court is able to take cognizance of offence under Sections 467 and 471 IPC unless a complaint is filed by court before which forged document has been produced. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused-persons have committed several offences and, therefore, the police has right to investigate into the matter and after investigation only, the truth can come and at this stage, no defence can be looked into. Learned counsel for the complainant tried to refer certain orders passed in the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. and also proceedings taken in the courts wherein according to the complainant, the accused persons submitted the documents signed with the forged signatures. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant tried to refer certain orders passed in the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. and also proceedings taken in the courts wherein according to the complainant, the accused persons submitted the documents signed with the forged signatures. 6. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts mentioned in the complaint. It appears from the complaint that according to the complainant the problem started about 40 years ago and as back as in the year 1963 and according to the complainant the father of the accused-petitioners nos. 2 and 3 Janwaru had one plot which was sold to the complainant's father on 25th Sept., 1963. The possession was given to the complainant's father, thereafter, the complainant's father left the village and started living in different village. The dispute arose in the year 1978 during election period and because of that reason, the accused-petitioners nos. 1 and 2 tried to encroached upon the above mentioned plot of the complainant and in that sequence, the accused-petitioner no.3 also joined them in the year 1978, specifically on 15th July, 1978. The complainant's father was dispossessed, upon which a case under Section 145/146 IPC was registered and the property was attached. In that matter a revision petition was filed in this Court. Then for this very property a suit was filed by the accused-petitioners nos. 1 and 2 in the Civil Court at Parbatsar on 26th May, 1986 and, therein the complainant's father submitted counter claim. According to the complainant an appeal is pending in the court of District Judge, Prabatsar and an application for transfer of that matter was submitted in the court of Addl. District Judge, Merta and as per the complainant, the accused nos. 1 to 3 forged the thumb impression of accused no.4 and in that accused nos. 5, 6 and 7 are also involved. Thereafter, it is submitted that one sale deed was executed about two and half years ago by accused no.4 by giving false certificate of Sarpanch. However, that sale deed was not registered, then accused submitted Vakalatnama and applications etc by fabricating the signatures and thumb impression of others in the courts including the affidavits, which was fled in the court of District Judge, Merta. However, that sale deed was not registered, then accused submitted Vakalatnama and applications etc by fabricating the signatures and thumb impression of others in the courts including the affidavits, which was fled in the court of District Judge, Merta. Therefor, as per the complainant itself the offence was committed by the accused persons since 1978 and they are continuing it as per the allegations in the complaint by submitting documents in the court of law with forged signatures or thumb impressions of other person and not of complaint and others have raised grievance is not the allegation. 7. In the entire complaint there is no mention how the complainant was cheated so as to constitute any offence under Section 420 IPC by the alleged fabrication of documents. It is submitted that those documents were submitted in the courts. In view of the above reasons, the documents have been used as per the complainant in the court proceedings and, therefore, in view of bar under Section 195(1)(a)(ii) the prosecution cannot proceed for the offences under Sections 467 and 471 IPC and so far as rest of the offence like under Section 420,465 and 120B IPC are concerned, there is no factual basis or material allegation in the complaint except vague plea. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The FIR no.65/04 registered in pursuance of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is quashed and complaint is dismissed.Petition allowed. *******