Judgment :- 1. This petition u/S.482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the proceedings in C.C.No.2230/08 on the file of the learned II Addl. JMFC, Gulbarga and the petitioner seeks quashing of the said proceedings. 2. The facts in brief are that the 2nd respondent lodged a private complaint u/S.200 of the Cr.P.C. by stating that in respect of the claim petition filed before the workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, the petitioner herein appeared before the Workmen’s Commissioner and filed his written statement and also filed xerox copy of the insurance cover note in respect of the vehicle belonged to the petitioner bearing registration No.KA-38/9000. The Insurance Company contested the said claim petition before the Workmen’s Commissioner and took up the stand that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was not insured with the Insurance Company. However, based on the xerox copy of the covering note produced by the petitioner herein, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,13,570/- with interest to the claimants Eshwaramma and others. Later on, the Insurance Company came to know that the present petitioner being the owner of the vehicle had produced at fake insurance cover note, it approached the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation for modification of the order passed in WCA/Cr.No.61/01 in respect of Eshwaramma-the claimant. After issuing notice to the petitioner and after considering the documents produced by the Insurance Company as well as the other materials on record, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was satisfied that the petitioner herein had produced a fake insurance covering note and therefore, Misc. Petition No.1/05 filed by the Insurance Company was allowed and the order passed awarding compensation was recalled and the petitioner herein was directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs.3,20,507/-. Pursuant to the said direction, following the petitioner not depositing the said amount, Execution petition was filed by the Insurance Company and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to deposit the said amount within 15 days, but he did not comply with the said direction. Under these circumstances, the Insurance Company is therefore filed a private complaint u/S.200 of the Cr.P.C. for taking action against the petitioner in respect of the fake insurance cover note produced before the Workmen’s Compensation Authorities. 3. Under these circumstances, the Insurance Company is therefore filed a private complaint u/S.200 of the Cr.P.C. for taking action against the petitioner in respect of the fake insurance cover note produced before the Workmen’s Compensation Authorities. 3. The said complaint therefore referred to the police for investigation by the learned Magistrate and ultimately, the charge sheet was submitted by the police in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 193, 198 and 199 of the I.P.C. The petitioner appeared before the trial court and was released on bail and now he is before this Court challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against him in the aforementioned C.C.No.2230/08. 4. I have heard Sri. Ishwar Raj S. Chowdapur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, learned Addl. S.P.P., for the State and Sri. S.S. Aspalli, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the entire material placed before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contented that in respect of the offence punishable u/S.195 of the I.P.C., the complaint has to be lodged in writing by the court concerned and not by any other person. Referring to Section 195(1) of the Cr.P.C., it is argued that no Court shall take cognizance in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196 of the I.P.C. and other Sections mentioned in clause (b)(i) of the said Section, except on the complaint in writing of that Court by such an officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or some other court to which that Court is subordinate. Therefore, referring to the aforementioned provision of Section 195 and also referring to Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., which prescribes the procedure as to how the complaint has to be preferred under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., learned Counsel argued that except on the complaint by the Court concerned, there is no other way of permitting any other person to file a complaint u/S.200 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences relating to documents given in evidence. It is also contended that the said cover note was produced by the petitioner before the Workmen’s Commissioner and after three years, the award came to be passed and the compensation was also satisfied by the Insurance Company and more over the petitioner cannot be found at fault for producing the cover note which documents was issued with a seal of the Insurance Company by the authorised agent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the present complaint u/S.200 is not at all maintainable and the trial court was erred in taking cognizance of the above said offences. In view of the bar contained u/S.195 r/w Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court could not have proceeded to take cognizance on the basis of the private complaint lodged by the Insurance Company. In support of the above submission, learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1994(4) Crimes 297. 6. On the other hand, learned Addl.S.P.P. for the State argued that the bar u/S.195 of the Cr.P.C. comes into picture only in respect of the documents produced during the course of the trial before the court concerning and it is only where an offence is stated to have taken place in the course of the proceedings before the court concerned, that the concerned court alone has to file the complaint in writing as required u/S.195 of the Cr.P.C. It is the contention of the Addl.S.P.P., that insofar as the present case is concerned, the documents in question namely the insurance cover note was a fake one and it was produced before the court. In other words, the forgery had taken place prior to the production of the document in the Court and therefore the bar u/S.195(i)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. will not be applicable. Further submission made is that in respect of the offences relating to documents produced in evidence and copies of the forged documents without originals before the court, no complaint by the court is necessary before taking cognizance. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 1121 , submission made by the learned Addl.S.P.P. that where forgery of documents had taken place before the said documents were produced in Court the bar u/S.195(i)(b)(ii) is not applicable. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 1121 , submission made by the learned Addl.S.P.P. that where forgery of documents had taken place before the said documents were produced in Court the bar u/S.195(i)(b)(ii) is not applicable. Another decision referred to is the one of this Court reported in 2002 Crl.L.J.2145 which is to the effect that where the court refers the private complaint for police investigation, the bar u/S.195(i)(b)(ii) cannot be invoked and the proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground u/S.482 of the Cr.P.C. Yet another ruling referred to is the one reported in 1998 Crl.L.J.99 of Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein it has been held that in respect of the documents forged outside the later produced before the court, the bar u/S.195 is not attracted. 7. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company also supported the above arguments of the State and further submitted that even after the Insurance company took up the matter before the Executing Court, the petitioner herein transferred his house property by gifting it in the name of his wife and further the Workmen’s Commissioner after recording the evidence of the Insurance Company in respect of the miscellaneous proceedings called upon the petitioner to produce the original cover note, but the petitioner failed to produce the same and also did not produce the original policy. Under these circumstances, a private complaint lodged by the Insurance Company and the cognizance taken by the trial court after the charge sheet being submitted cannot be interfered with in these proceedings. 8. Having thus heard both sides, the only point for consideration is whether the Bar u/S.195 of the Cr.P.C. is attracted or not to the present case. 9. It is not in dispute that the xerox copy of the cover note was produced by the petitioner before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner along with the written statement. The W.C. Commissioner passed the award against the Insurance Company and it is also not in controversy that the Insurance Company filed the Miscellaneous petition before the W.C. Commissioner bringing to its notice that the cover note produced was a fake one. The Workmen’s Commissioner called upon the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle to produce the original cover note or the original policy. Neither of them was produced by the petitioner. The Workmen’s Commissioner called upon the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle to produce the original cover note or the original policy. Neither of them was produced by the petitioner. As such, the W.C. Commissioner recalled the earlier order and directed the petitioner to re-deposit the compensation received. All these proceedings therefore clearly go to show that the petitioners despite being given an opportunity to produce the original cover note or the original policy did not do so. 10. The facts of this case also establishes that the documents in question was at the first instance a fake one according to the Insurance Company and it is nobody’s case that subsequent to the production of the documents in Court, that an offence was committed during the course of the proceedings before the Workmen’s Commissioner. Therefore, it is clear that the forgery, which the Insurance Company is alleging has taken place prior to the documents being produced before the Workmen’s Commissioner, whether in such circumstances, the bar u/S.195 of the Cr.P.C. comes into picture or not is the question. 11. In the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner reported in 1999(4) Crimes 297, it has been held that provision of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable and no Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein, unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that Section. In the said decision, it is also held that u/S.195 of the Cr.P.C., it is open to the court before which the offence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of the offender and u/S.340 of the Cr.P.C., prescribes the procedure as to how the complaint may be preferred. Therefore, it is clear from the above position in law that only in respect of an offence which is committed before the Court that it is for that Court to lodge a complaint by following procedure u/S.340 of the Cr.P.C. It is nobody’s case that the forgery of the cover note had taken place during the course of the proceedings before the Workmen’s Commissioner after the documents having been produced before the said authority. 12. Where any document was forged outside, but later produced into the Court, a bar u/S.195 of the Cr.P.C. does not get attracted. 12. Where any document was forged outside, but later produced into the Court, a bar u/S.195 of the Cr.P.C. does not get attracted. In the decision of Gurbachan Singh v. Sant Singh (1988 Crl.L.J.99), it has been held that where in a civil litigation forgery to the documents has been committed outside the Court and the documents has been presented in the forged state in the Court, the bar u/S.195 would not be attracted. 13. In the case of Devaramane Sringeshwaraiah and another v. M.N. Narasimha Pandith and another (2002 Crl.L.J.2145), a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that where a court does not take cognizance but directs the police to investigate into a private complaint alleging forged documents being filed by the accused, bar u/S.195(i)(b)(ii) cannot be invoked. In the said decision, it has also been clearly held that if the forgery had been committed while the document was in the custody of a Court, then the prosecution can be launched only on the complaint made by that Court and if forgery was committed with a document which has not been produced in the Court, then the prosecution would lie at the instance of any person. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another ( AIR 1998 SC 1121 ) has held thus:- “The bar contained in S.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. The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in S.340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodian legis”. 15. The position in law from the aforesaid observations in the cases mentioned is that the bar u/S.195(i)(b)(ii) does not apply where forgery of the documents is committed before production of the documents in that Court. In the instance case, it is not the contention of any of the parties that the cover note in question was forged after it was produced before the W.C. authority. In the instance case, it is not the contention of any of the parties that the cover note in question was forged after it was produced before the W.C. authority. But on the other hand, it is the specific stand of the Insurance Company that a forged cover note was produced by the petitioner before the W.C. authorities. 16. Under the said circumstances, this revision petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed.