JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. None has appeared on behalf of the parties concerned. With the help of this application, made under Section 482, Cr PC, the petitioner has sought for setting aside and quashing the First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), which has led to the registration of Dibrugarh Police Station Case No. 636/2006 under Sections 465/468/199/ 200/34, IPC. 2. The case of the accused-petitioner is, in brief, stated as under : (i) The accused-petitioner has been a process server in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. Title Suit, bearing No. 97/2006, was instituted for ejectment of the tenants of the plaintiff and recovery of arrear rents, the defendant, in the suit, being one Tarsem Singh Bhogal, who has, eventually, lodged the FIR. The suit is still pending in the Court of Munsiff No. 1 at Dibrugarh. (ii) The petitioner, as process server, was entrusted by the Civil Nazir to serve summons, on the complainant-informant, who was defendant in the said suit. The petitioner went to the residence of the complainant, called him through one of his employees and, thereafter, the complainant received the summons and put his signature thereon. (iii) The service report was accordingly submitted by the petitioner, in the said suit, which, in course of time, was decreed ex parte, on 28.09.2006, because the complainant did not appear to contest the suit. (iv) Later on, the complainant filed a petition, on 26.10.2006, under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to get set aside the ex parte decree, dated 28.09.2006, in Title Suit No. 96/2006. The application, so made, gave rise to Misc. (J) Case No. 62/2006. In the application, which so gave rise to Misc. (J) Case No. 62/2006, the complainant, as defendant No. 2, made a statement that he had never been served with summons. The plaintiff in the suit, however, contested the said application by contending to the effect, inter alia, that summons were duly served. (v) While the application, seeking to get set aside the ex parte decree, was so pending, as indicated above, defendant No. 2 filed a complaint, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, which was sent by order, dated 28.11.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, to the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, to register a case and investigate the same. The investigating officer submitted a report, on 16.12.2006, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, stating to the effect that the allegations, made in the complaint, constituted a dispute of civil nature and that the subject-matter of the complaint already stood decided by the Court and the complainant, if aggrieved, can prefer appeal against the refusal to set aside the decree. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, sent back the complaint, on 22.12.2006, to the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, who, in turn, registered a case, namely, Dibrugarh Police Station Case No. 363/2006, under Sections 465/468/199/200/34, IPC, which the present petitioner seeks to get set quashed, because it is against the order, dated 22.12.2006, aforementioned, the registration of the FIR and investigation that the present petition for quashing has been filed. 3. While considering the present petition, it needs to be noted that it is the specific case of the complainant that he had not been served with summons and that his signature had been forged on the service report showing that summons had been served on him, as a defendant, in the said suit. The allegation of forgery, which was so made, could not have been said to be a subject-matter of purely civil nature. Commission of forgery is, indeed, an offence under the Indian Penal Code. 4. In the circumstances indicated above, it was wholly illegal, on the part of the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, not to register a case on the basis of the complaint by declining to treat the same as FIR pursuant to the order passed, on 28.11.2006, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, therefore, committed no error of law in directing, on 22.12.2006, the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh, to register a case and this is precisely what has been done in the present case. 5. As the complaint, which has given rise to the FIR, clearly contains statements, which, if assumed to be true, make out a case of forgery and fabrication of evidence, the registration of the FIR is not bad in law. 6. 5. As the complaint, which has given rise to the FIR, clearly contains statements, which, if assumed to be true, make out a case of forgery and fabrication of evidence, the registration of the FIR is not bad in law. 6. Coupled with the above, the principal challenge to the registration of the case, under the penal provisions aforementioned, is on the ground that under Section 195, Cr PC, taking cognizance of an offence of forgery and/or of an offence of fabrication of evidence, in certain circumstances, is barred, it is pertinent to take note of the ambit of the bar, which Section 195, Cr PC creates as regards taking of cognizance in respect of offences of giving or fabricating of false evidence and/or commission of offence of forgery and punishment thereof. 7. In view of the fact that the entire controversy, in the present criminal petition, centres around the provisions of Section 195, it is necessary to take note of the relevant provisions of Section 195, which read as under : 195. 7. In view of the fact that the entire controversy, in the present criminal petition, centres around the provisions of Section 195, it is necessary to take note of the relevant provisions of Section 195, which read as under : 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.--(1) No Court shall take cognizance-- (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he administratively subordinate; (b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint : Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term 'Court' means a civil, revenue or criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purpose of this section. 8. The relevant provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (i), which apply to the present case, read thus : (1) No Court shall take cognizance-- (a)(i) *** *** *** (ii) *** *** *** (iii) *** *** *** (b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) *** *** *** except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. 9. In Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 533 , the Supreme Court had held to the effect that once a document is produced or given in evidence in a Court, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) bars Courts from taking cognizance on the basis of a private complaint of forgery having been committed in respect of such a document. In other words, according to Surjit Singh's case (supra), irrespective of the fact as to whether a forgery in respect of a document is committed before or after the document is introduced in evidence, the bar, created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii), gets attracted. However, in a subsequent case, namely, Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 493 , the Supreme Court took the view that the bar, contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would not apply, when forgery in respect of a document was committed before the document had beer, produced in the Court or introduced in evidence. The relevant observations, made in Sachida Nand Singh (supra), read as under: 6. The relevant observations, made in Sachida Nand Singh (supra), read as under: 6. In Sachida Nand Singh after analysis of the relevant provisions and noticing a number of earlier decisions (but not Surjit Singh), the Court recorded its conclusions in paras 11, 12 and 23, which are being reproduced below : 11. The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 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 custodia legis. 12. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the Court records. *** *** *** 23. The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 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. 10. The controversy, thus, raised is as to whether the bar, under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies to the cases, where forgery of a document is committed before the same is produced in the Court or Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is attracted only when such forgery is committed after the document has already been produced in the Court. This controversy has been authoritatively resolved by a Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr., reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 , wherein, concurring with the views, expressed in Sachida Nand Singh (supra), the Constitution Bench held that the bar, under Section 195(1)(b)(ii), would be attracted only when the offences enumerated therein 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., when the document was in custodia legis. The relevant observations made, in this regard, read as under : 33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been currently decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. The relevant observations made, in this regard, read as under : 33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been currently decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195 (1)(b)(ii), Cr PC 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. 11. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement in Iqbal Singh Marzvah (supra), there can be escape from the conclusion that when a document is forged and then produced in a Court, the complaint, as regards the offence of forgery, can be lodged by anyone and no formal complaint by the Court, where the forged document is filed or introduced, is necessary. A complaint by a Court is necessary only when forgery in respect of a document is committed after the document has already produced in the Court or introduced in evidence. 12. What may also be noted is that Section 190, Cr PC empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts, which constitute such offence, (b) upon a police report of such facts, and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. 13. Section 195 is one of the exceptions to the general provisions of Section 190 inasmuch as Section 195 creates an embargo upon the Magistrate's power to take cognizance of certain specified offences. The procedure for filing of a complaint by a Court, contemplated by Section 195(1)(b)(ii), is given in Section 340, Cr PC. This Section reads : 340. 13. Section 195 is one of the exceptions to the general provisions of Section 190 inasmuch as Section 195 creates an embargo upon the Magistrate's power to take cognizance of certain specified offences. The procedure for filing of a complaint by a Court, contemplated by Section 195(1)(b)(ii), is given in Section 340, Cr PC. This Section reads : 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195.--(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary-- (a) Record a finding to that effect; (b) Make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) Send it to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction; (d) "Take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) Bring over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195. 14. If the provisions of Section 340 of the Code are carefully analyzed, it becomes clear that the Court is not bound to make a complaint as regards commission of an offence in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), for, the Court has to be of the view that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make the complaint. 14. If the provisions of Section 340 of the Code are carefully analyzed, it becomes clear that the Court is not bound to make a complaint as regards commission of an offence in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), for, the Court has to be of the view that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make the complaint. The Constitution Bench, in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), has, therefore, held that the language of Section 340 shows that a Magistrate will lodge a complaint only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing the complaint, observes the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marzvah (supra), the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) and that this expediency will, normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of the injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, which the commission of offence may have upon administration of justice. 15. In the case at hand, the process server's report was alleged, by the complainant-opposite party, to have been forged by putting complainant's signature thereon and then introduced as a piece of evidence in the said suit to show that the summons, which had been issued in the said suit, stood served on the complainant, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit. As the commission of forgery was allegedly done before the document, in question, i.e., the process server's report was introduced in the suit, it becomes abundantly clear that the bar, which Section 195(1)(b)(ii) creates, would not apply. Same is the position so far as the giving or fabricating of evidence, as envisaged by Section 199 or 200, IPC is concerned inasmuch as fabrication, if any, of the evidence was before the same was introduced as a piece of evidence in the suit. 16. Coupled with the above, investigation of a case is different from taking of cognizance. Section 195, Cr PC, which the petitioner seeks to take recourse to, would, therefore, come into play only when the question of taking of cognizance arises. 17. 16. Coupled with the above, investigation of a case is different from taking of cognizance. Section 195, Cr PC, which the petitioner seeks to take recourse to, would, therefore, come into play only when the question of taking of cognizance arises. 17. In the present case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, did not take cognizance, when he merely directed the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, to register an FIR on the basis of the said complaint. This apart, as far as the case of forgery is concerned, a Court is barred from taking cognizance, under Section 195, Cr PC, if forgery has been committed in respect of a document, which has been filed in a proceeding of the Court. If a document is forged and, then, filed in a suit, the bar of Section 195, Cr PC would not be attracted or whether the evidence has been given or fabricated after the document, in question, is already introduced into to the evidence. 18. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find that the direction, given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, to the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, by order, dated 22.12.2006, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. 19. When the impugned order, dated 22.12.2006, cannot be interfered with, it logically follows that registration of the FIR and the consequential investigation, which is required to be carried out, can also not be interfered with. 20. In view of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal petition. The criminal petition, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 21. Send forthwith a copy of this order to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh. Send forthwith a copy of this order to the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, too. Petition dismissed