Judgment :- The petitioner is the de facto complainant. On 01.04.2009, he preferred a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Puducherry for registration of a case and for investigation. The crux of the allegation made in the complaint would be that by forging the signature of one Alexander certain documents have been created by the proposed accused and latter on they have been produced before the court of law. For necessary registration of a case and for investigation for forgery and other offences, the petitioner preferred the said complaint. But, no case was registered on the same. In those circumstances, he has come forward with this petition with a prayer for direction to the respondents to re-investigate the case. 2. When it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that since no case has been registered on the complaint dated 01.04.2009, the question of reinvestigation does not arise, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court may mould the relief so as to direct the respondents to register a case on the complaint and to investigate the same. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Puducherry appearing for the respondent would, however, submit that the matter was enquired into as petition enquiry and since it was found that dispute involved was civil in nature and since there was civil suit pending between the parties, no case was registered. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. 5. In my considered opinion, a perusal of the allegations made in the complaint would prima facie go to show that alleged forgery was committed before the document was presented before the Civil Court. Therefore, for the offence of forgery committed long before the initiation of civil proceedings, certainly, there is no bar for registration of a criminal case. As a matter of fact, as early as in the year 1998, in Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another, (1998) 2 SCC 493 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 & 7 has held as follows: 6. A reading of the clause reveals two main postulates for operation of the bar mentioned there. First is, there must be allegation that an offence (it should be either an offence described in Section 463 or any other offence punishable under Sections 471, 475, 476 of the IPC) has been committed. A reading of the clause reveals two main postulates for operation of the bar mentioned there. First is, there must be allegation that an offence (it should be either an offence described in Section 463 or any other offence punishable under Sections 471, 475, 476 of the IPC) has been committed. Second is that such offence should have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. There is no dispute before us that if forgery has been committed while the document was in the custody of a court, then prosecution can be launched only with a complaint made by that court. There is also no dispute that if forgery was committed with a document which has not been produced in a court then the prosecution would lie at the instance of any person. If so, will its production in a court make all the difference? 7. Even if the clause is capable of two interpretations we are inclined to choose the narrower interpretation for obvious reasons. Section 190 of the Code empowers “any magistrate of the first class” to take cognizance of “any offence” upon receiving a complaint, or police report or information or upon his own knowledge. Section 195 restricts such general powers of the magistrate, and the general right of a person to move the court with a complaint is to that extent curtailed. It is a wellrecognised canon of interpretation that provision curbing the general jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict interpretation unless the statute or the context requires otherwise (Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani, AIR 1966 SC 1718 ). 6. The said view was later on affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 . 7. In view of the aforesaid well settled position of law, the only contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that because there is a civil suit pending, criminal case could not be registered, is only liable to be rejected. 8. As I have already stated since all the offences which are stated in the complaint were allegedly committed outside the Court that too long before the filing of the civil suit, the respondents are bound to register a case and to investigate the same in accordance with law. 8. As I have already stated since all the offences which are stated in the complaint were allegedly committed outside the Court that too long before the filing of the civil suit, the respondents are bound to register a case and to investigate the same in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent is, therefore, directed to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 01.04.2009 and investigate the same in accordance with law.