JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 15152/1995 challenging the judgment dated 13.9.2004, passed by the 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore acquitting the respondents of the offences under Sections 120B, 465 and 471 IPC. 2. The case of the complainant is that prior to 24.9.1994 in respect of the property No. 17, 3rd Cross, Opposite to Woodlands hotel and adjacent to V.N. Sharma Rao house, Sampangiram Nagar, Bangalore-27, the respondents accused forged the sale deed dated 24.9.1994 with an intention to cause damage to the complainant and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 465 IPC. It is further charged against them that, on the above said date, place and time the accused fraudulently or dishonestly executed the sale deed dated 24.9.1994 and used it as genuine document knowing or having reason to believe that the said document is forged one thereby, they are alleged to have committed offence under Section 471 IPC. It is further alleged that on the above said date, place and time the accused agreed with each other to do an illegal act. that is, to create forged document and commit offence of forgery and cheating thereby, they are alleged to have committed criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120(B) IPC. 3. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P23. 4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, after hearing the complainant and the defence, the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondents of the offence levelled against them. The aggrieved complainant has filed this appeal. 5. Heard Sri S.V. Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri B.N. Poojary, learned Counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the accused have created forged document and filed O.S. No. 4066/1994 and obtained ex parte order and thereafter, though the ex parte order was in force the respondent. No. 1 has again filed a suit, in O.S. No. 7251/1994 which is marked as Ex. P13, whereas, the accused No. 2 filed O.S. No. 7248/1994 which was marked as Ex. P12. Both these Exs. P12 and P18 have been filed on the same day and by suppressing the real facts they have filed the above suits. No. 1 has again filed a suit, in O.S. No. 7251/1994 which is marked as Ex. P13, whereas, the accused No. 2 filed O.S. No. 7248/1994 which was marked as Ex. P12. Both these Exs. P12 and P18 have been filed on the same day and by suppressing the real facts they have filed the above suits. The accused have not filed any documents to say that the said cases are filed either bona fide or by representing true facts. Hence, he submits that the accused have committed the offences alleged against them and therefore, they deserve to be convicted. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents accused on the other hand submits that apart from examining himself, the complainant has not examined any witness to show that the document that is, the sale deed dated 24.9.1994 is a forged document. Neither the officer before whom the said document is forged or produced nor any witnesses who have seen the accused forging the said document have been examined and therefore, the allegations of forgery has not been proved. He further submits that since the forgery has not been proved, the offence under Section 471 also necessarily has not been proved by the complainant. He submits that there Is no material to support the allegation regarding the criminal conspiracy said to have been entered into between accused Nos. 1. and 2. Hence, he submits that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate does not call for any interference. 8. The complainant Sri Sajjan K. Sanyasi has filed the complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore on 28.2.1995. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the said complaint posted the same for sworn statement and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, on 15.7.1995 issued process to the accused. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that the accused have forged and created a false document that is, sale deed dated 24.9.1994 and that each and every recital therein is false. He has further stated that schedule property was never addressed as “No. 17, 3rd Cross, Opposite to Woodlands Compound, Adjacent to V.N. Sharma’shouse, Sampangirama Nagar, Bangalore-27” and that the description of the property as mentioned in the said sale deed is misleading to the Court. He has further stated that schedule property was never addressed as “No. 17, 3rd Cross, Opposite to Woodlands Compound, Adjacent to V.N. Sharma’shouse, Sampangirama Nagar, Bangalore-27” and that the description of the property as mentioned in the said sale deed is misleading to the Court. He has further stated in the complaint that the accused being fully aware of the said fact that the sale deed has been forged, accused No. 1, has filed a suit in O.S. No. 7848/1994 whereas, the accused No. 2 filed O.S. No. 7251/1994 in respect of the said property and they have got issued a temporary injunction against him in the said suits. He has therefore submitted in the said complaint that the aforesaid suits that is, in O.S. No. 7848/1994 and O.S. No. 7251/1994 is filed by conspiracy between themselves in order to cause loss to him and therefore, the accused have committed offence of criminal conspiracy, forgery and producing the forged document in a Court of law. Hence, he has prayed for action against the accused. 9. In the sworn statement given by him before the learned Magistrate, he has reiterated the said fact and has stated that, the said property belongs to his family and the accused have no right or interest in the said property and by filing the above said cases accused have committed aforesaid offence. 10. Based on the said sworn statement, the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue summons to the accused. In the Court after appearance of the accused, the complainant has got himself examined as P.W. 1. He has stated that his father owned the property at No. 71, 8th Cross, Sampangiramrtagar, Bangalore which was purchased by his father in the year 1959 from one Manjappa. He has produced Ex. P1, which is the sale deed in respect of the property. Ex. P1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.5.1959, He has further stated that his father expired in the year 1980 and he has filed a case in O.S. No. 334/1976,which is renumbered as O.S. No. 1160/1980. He has further stated that the said plaint, is Ex. P2 and the suit was filed against his mother, sister and brother. During the pendency of the said suit, his mother died in the year 1977 and in the year 1969 his brother died. He has further stated that the said plaint, is Ex. P2 and the suit was filed against his mother, sister and brother. During the pendency of the said suit, his mother died in the year 1977 and in the year 1969 his brother died. The said suit was compromised in the year 1984 between himself and his sister and wife of his brother. The compounding memos filed in the said suits are produced as per Exs. P2 to P5. In the year 1984 his brother had released his share in the said property as per the release deed produced at, Ex. P6. It is further stated by him that one Sharma was in unauthorised possession of the said property. Hence, he filed O.S. No. 3208/1982 against the said Sharma as per Ex. P7. The said suit was decided in his favour as per Exs. P8 and P9. He has filed an appeal challenging the said order, however, since the defendant died he has got the possession of the property in the year 1994 through execution as per Exs. P10 and P11. It is further stated by him in his evidence that, when he started construction of the house in the aforesaid property the accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed original Suit. No. 7848/1994 and 7251/1994 respectively as per Exs. P12 and P13. The accused have further obtained the ex parte injunction in the said suit against him as per Ex. P14. He has further stated that the second accused has filed MFA and the said MFA. No. 620/1996 was dismissed and Ex. P15 is the said order dated 28.3.1996. The trial Court has dismissed the said suit filed by the second respondent in the year 1997. It is stated by the complainant, before the Court that in O.S. No. 4066/1994 the first accused had filed a case against Leela Bai and said Leela Bai is none other than wife of brother of the appellant. The said copy of suit No. 4066/1994 is produced as Ex. P16. The said suit is decreed declaring the plaintiff, as the owner in the possession of the suit schedule property. The complainant has further stated in the evidence before Court that he has filed C. Misc. No. 214/1991 as per Ex. P17 against accused No. 1 which was dismissed. Thereafter, the second accused filed a complaint in P.C.R. No. 476/1995, which is marked as Ex. The complainant has further stated in the evidence before Court that he has filed C. Misc. No. 214/1991 as per Ex. P17 against accused No. 1 which was dismissed. Thereafter, the second accused filed a complaint in P.C.R. No. 476/1995, which is marked as Ex. P18. The police had filed a report as per Ex. P21 stating that said complaint as false. The copy of the order in C. Misc. No. 129/1995 filed by him against accused No. 1 Rathnamma is marked as Ex. P22. The complainant has further filed a certified copy of plaint in O.S. No. 5974/1977 which is marked as Ex. P23 seeking for a judgment declaring that the judgment and decree dated 3.1.1987 in O.S. No. 4066/1984 is not binding on him and further the sale deed dated 24.9.1994 is null and void as per Ex. P28. The complainant has stated in the evidence before the Court that in view of the aforesaid fact the complainant has proved that the accused have committed forgery and also offence under Section 471 IPC and therefore, prays that the accused may be convicted. The accused have not chosen to enter into witness box or filed any objections in support of their defence. 11. The learned Magistrate, however, after hearing the complainant, and the defence has held that the evidence adduced by the complainant is not sufficient to hold that the accused have committed the offences. 12. I have gone through the evidence on record and also the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the judgment of the trial Court. It is seen that the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC alleged by the complainant is in respect of the forgery of the document which is the sale deed dated 24.9.1994. The second charge under Section 465 IPC is to the effect that, the said document of sale deed is alleged to have been forged. Section 471, IPC which is alleged against the accused is in respect of the very same document stating that accused have produced the said forged sale deed using the same as genuine document fraudulently and dishonestly knowing that the said document is forged. Therefore, the only issue in this ease is regarding the document dated 24.9.1994 which is alleged to be forged and used in the Court as a genuine document. Therefore, the only issue in this ease is regarding the document dated 24.9.1994 which is alleged to be forged and used in the Court as a genuine document. The said document is neither produced in this case nor a certified copy thereof is produced. Secondly, the document ought to have been subjected to hand writing expert for the purpose of comparison of the signatures found on the said document, to prove that the same was executed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. 13. In view of the fact that the document has not been produced, the allegations and the charges framed against the accused could not have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly it is seen that Section 195 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under Section 465 or 471 of IPC in respect of a document produced before a Court except on the complaint of that Court or by some other superior Court. Therefore, on the said ground also the complaint is not maintainable. 14. So far as the conspiracy to commit the offence is concerned, there is no material produced before the Court, to show that both accused-1 and 2 have either met or agreed together to commit an offence, namely, creation of document and in the absence of any evidence to that effect, the accused cannot be found guilty for offence under Section 120B IPC. 15. I have carefully gone through the Judgment of the Trial Court and on a careful scrutiny of the grounds mentioned by the learned Magistrate, I am of the opinion that the said grounds are proper and are neither illegal nor capricious. 16. On a careful consideration of the entire materials on record, I do not find any compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and in that view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.