JUDGMENT I. Mahanty, J. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners-proprietor and other employees of a proprietorship concern known as M/s. Ecoman, a proprietorship firm having its registered office at Vadodara in the State of Gujrat with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.10.2000 passed in I.C.C. Case No.92 of 1998, whereby, the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela has been pleased to take cognizance of offences under Sections 425, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. against them, inter alia, on the ground that taking of cognizance itself in the facts and circumstances of the present case was not only without jurisdiction but also amounted to gross abuse of the process of the Court and miscarriage of justice. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to note that the petitioners-firm i.e. M/s. Ecoman had entered into a tripartite agreement with the opposite party-company i.e. M/s. Ores Enterprises (P) Ltd. and the Orissa State Financial Corporation (O.S.F.C.) for supply of certain machineries to M/s. Ores Enterprises (P) Ltd. which were being financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Since certain disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner-firm i.e. M/s. Ecoman has filed a Special Civil Suit bearing No.327 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Vadodara against the opposite party-M/s. Ores Enterprises (P) Ltd. as well as the Orissa State Financial Corporation and the same is pending adjudication as on date. In the said suit, the petitioners-firm had made a prayer seeking injunction from encashment of bank guarantee along with other prayers. Although initially an interim order was passed injuncting encashment of bank guarantee but the same was vacated at the instance of the O.S.F.C. and the said suit remains pending for final adjudication. During the pendency of the said suit the petitioners-firm alleging dishonour of certain cheques issued by the opposite party-company initiated a Criminal Complaint Case No.2349 of 1998 before the learned C.J.M., Vadodara, implicating the Director-Harbinder Singh Deengra of the opposite party-company for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as well as Section 420 I.P.C. The aforesaid Criminal Complaint was lodged on 10.8.1998 and the same remains pending adjudication. As a counter blast to the aforesaid complaint proceeding initiated by the petitioners-firm against opposite party-company, the opposite party-company filed a complaint case bearing I.C.C. Case No.92 of 1998 against the present petitioners-firm for alleged commission of offences under Sections 425, 467, 471 I.P.C. before the Court of S.D.J.M., Panposh, Udit Nagar, Rourkela in the State of Orissa. This Complaint case came to be filed on 15.9.1998 i.e. after Criminal Case was registered at Vadodara and subsequent thereto after recording statement of the complainant-opposite party under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also recording the statement of two witnesses namely H.S. Deengra and Afroz Azam under Section 202 Cr.P.C., by the order dated 10.11.1998, the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela had taken cognizance of offences as noted hereinabove which was the subject matter of challenge in CRLMC No.970 of 1998 before the Orissa High Court, which came to be disposed of by order dated 12.5.2000. 3. The essence of the complaint made in I.C.C. Case No.92 of 1998 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Udit Nagar, Rourkela is that the accused persons (present petitioners) personally behind the back of the complainant had procured a letter pad of the complainant-company from a staff of the company and typed a letter and the accused persons have forged the signature of George Bakhtan on that letter. Further, it is alleged that the said letter in question was forged by the accused persons and by forging it, the accused persons intended to harm fraudulently and dishonestly use the said letter as genuine for the purpose of cheating and also use it for personal gain on 30.4.1998. On perusal of the documents appended to the impugned proceeding, the following facts emerge. “2. On perusal of the documents appended to the impugned proceeding, the following facts emerge. “2. The complainant-opposite party in sub-paragraph 1 and 3 of paragraph 4 of the complaint petition has stated as follows:- “The accused persons personally behind the back to the complainant has procured a letter pad of the complainant from a staff of the company and typed a letter, and the accused persons have signed the signature of George Bakhtan on that letter.” XXX xxxx xxxx “the said letter in question is forged by the accused person and by forging it the accused persons intended to harm fraudly and dishonestly uses it as genuine for the purpose of cheating and uses it for personal gain on 30th April, 1998.” The complainant-opposite party in his initial statement recorded on 25.9.1998, has stated as follows:- “The accused persons obtained my letter pad from one Afroz Azam, my staff and utilized the same for filing in the court. The case filed by the accused person at Vadodara utilizing my letter pad was dismissed.” P.W.1, H.S. Deengra in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has stated as follows:- “The Company Officials have obtained the letter pad from our staff and forged the signature of M.D. and accordingly extended the Bank Guarantee.” P.W.2, Afroz Azam in his statement recorded u/s,202 Cr.P.C. has stated as follows:- “On the second visit of Rabindra Lele and his associates asked me to give 5 to 6 copies of letter pad required by Harbindra Singh. So out of good faith I handed over 5/6 letter pads of the company. Subsequently, I learnt that the letter pads were misutilized. P.W.3, the complaint-opposite party himself in his further statement recorded on 8.9.2000 u/s.202 Cr.P.C. has stated as follows:- “The accused persons came to inspect the factory premises in order to install the equipments and machineries during the second week of March, 1998. The accused persons met my staff Afroz Azam and asked for letter pad to prepare some letter saying that I have instructed them. The accused persons brought the letter head pad from my staff and typed out some letter in my office at Rourkela. These letter pads are printed in the name of my company. There was no signature on any of letter head pad kept in my office.” XXX XXX XXX “Thereafter I proceeded to Ahemadabad. The accused persons brought the letter head pad from my staff and typed out some letter in my office at Rourkela. These letter pads are printed in the name of my company. There was no signature on any of letter head pad kept in my office.” XXX XXX XXX “Thereafter I proceeded to Ahemadabad. I enquired about this matter from the company of the accused persons. There I could ascertain that one letter has been filed under my signature giving an extension of Bank Guarantee. Thereafter I came to know that since this letter was prepared by using my letter head pad it appears that my forged signature was obtained and thereafter been filed in the Bank and extended the guarantee period which was not honoured by the Bank. The accused persons took plea on the basis of this forged letter and they have filed a Civil Suit in Civil Court at Ahemedabad. The injunction granted was vacated and the Civil Suit was dismissed which went in my favour.” Therefore the dispute raised in the complaint filed before the S.D.J.M., Panposh, Udit Nagar, Rourkela relates to an alleged letter dated 24.1.1998. Most importantly, these letters have been marked as Exts.60, 73 & 78 in Special Civil Suit No.327 of 1998 before the Civil Court, Vadodara, in which the complainant-opposite party is a party. Based on the said letter, the bank guarantee offered by the petitioners-firm was extended twice and the O.S.F.C. has acted upon it on 9.2.98, 12.3.98 as well as on 21.3.98. 4. At this juncture, it would be most important to take note of the fact that the opposite party-complainant in I.C.C. Case No.92 of 1998 has also filed its a written statement in Special Civil Suit No.327 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at Vadodara. This document i.e. the letter dated 24.1.1998 which is allegedly forged by the petitioner is very much a part of the pleadings and the said document has been exhibited in the said suit. On a perusal of the written statement filed by the opposite party-complainant, it is clear therefrom that the complainant has raised no allegation or complaint of forgery or otherwise in the said written statement and on the contrary affirmed the fact of the petitioners-firm and extended its bank guarantee up to 31.5.1998. 5. On a perusal of the written statement filed by the opposite party-complainant, it is clear therefrom that the complainant has raised no allegation or complaint of forgery or otherwise in the said written statement and on the contrary affirmed the fact of the petitioners-firm and extended its bank guarantee up to 31.5.1998. 5. It is also important to take note of the fact that the petitioners-firm had approached this Court earlier in CRLMC No.970 of 1998 which had came to be disposed of by order dated 12.05.2000. Various observations and directions were issued by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and in particular paragraphs-8, 9 & 10 which are extracted herein below:- “8. In view of the foresaid finding before recording the consequential order it is relevant to dispose of the other contentions raised by the petitioners and resisted by the opposite party. One of the contentions of the petitioners is that the dispute is a civil dispute and a criminal proceeding may not lie. When the allegation of forgery is leveled the aforesaid contention of the petitioners does not hold good keeping in view the assertions made by the complainant. However, the aforesaid contention can be appropriately considered after the whole case of the complainant is properly putforth before the learned Magistrate. 9. Another contention raised by the petitioners is that if at all the allegation of forgery is accepted for the sake of discussion, such forged document having been produced in a civil proceeding at Baroda and marked as exhibit without objection from the side of the complaint as defendant, a private complaint is not maintainable in view of the ratio in the case of Gopalakrishna Menon and another v. D. Raja Reddy and another, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1053. The repelling contention of the opposite party is that the allegation in the complaint is not for using the forged document as evidence in a civil proceeding and therefore the ratio in the aforesaid case for the complaint u/s. 340 of the Code is not applicable and since the complaint alleges of forgery for the purpose of extending the bank guarantee which is not a proceeding before any court, a private complaint u/s. 200 of the Code is maintainable. In that respect he relies on a series of decisions viz: Raghunath and others v. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1100; Mohan Lal and others v. The State of Rahasthan and another, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 299; Dr. S.L. Goswami v. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1979 SC 437; and Legal Remembrancer of Govt. of West Bengal v. Haridas Mundra, A.I.R. 1976 SC 2225. After going through the citations and the relevant provision of law and taking into consideration the argument advanced it is found that for the present, the argument of the complainant is acceptable unless some circumstances will appear in the case to show or suggest that the complainant is making allegation and desiring punishment of the accused persons for producing forged document as evidence in a court proceeding. 10. After deciding the contentions raised by the parties in the aforesaid manner and keeping in view the finding relating to deficiency of evidence to substantiate the existence of a prima facie case while passing the impugned order of cognizance this Court direct that the complaint need not be dismissed for a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If within that period the complainant shall appear in the court of S.D.J.M. and shall file an application expressing his intention to adduce further evidence in the enquiry u/s 202 of the Code. If such application shall be filed by the complainant, learned S.D.J.M. may do well to allow the same and to afford reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence at the stage of enquiry. If the complainant will desire to re-examine himself and the witnesses that may be permitted and on completion of the enquiry learned S.D.J.M shall carefully peruse the statement and evidence and pass appropriate order in respect of taking or not taking cognizance of any offence. It is made clear that at the stage of enquiry u/s.202 of the Code, the accused/petitioners have no role to participate in that proceeding save and except watching the same, if they so like.” 6. Mr. It is made clear that at the stage of enquiry u/s.202 of the Code, the accused/petitioners have no role to participate in that proceeding save and except watching the same, if they so like.” 6. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners-firm placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Gopalakrishna Menon & another v. D. Raja Reddy and another, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1053, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that in a case where there is no dispute that the alleged forged document produced in the suit brought by either party, Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. would apply and when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is attracted. In the absence of a complaint in writing of the Civil Court where the alleged forged document has been produced, taking of cognizance of the offence would be bad in law and the prosecution would not be maintainable since there would be absolutely no justification to harass the accused-petitioners by allowing prosecution to have a full dressed trial. 7. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite party-company strenuously urged that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought not to be exercised in the present case since it is well settled by a catena of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in particular in the case of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa konjalgi and others, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1947 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and if such Magistrate is prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, he is legally bound to do so and it is not within the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case and nor can the High Court go into the matter. Apart from the aforesaid contention, it is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the opposite party-company that the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners-firm ought not to be taken into consideration at the present stage and can only be raised by the petitioners-firm in course of the trial. 8. Apart from the aforesaid contention, it is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the opposite party-company that the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners-firm ought not to be taken into consideration at the present stage and can only be raised by the petitioners-firm in course of the trial. 8. In the case at hand, the prosecution is on the basis of a private complaint and in the absence of a complaint from the appropriate civil court, where the alleged fraudulent document has been produced, would not be sustainable and such proposition is no longer res integra what has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in the case of Gopalakrishna Menon & another (supra). 9. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, I am of the considered view that if the prosecution is allowed to continue, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioners and they would be called upon to face the trial which would not be sustainable. Hence, the order of cognizance dated 18.10.2000 passed in I.C.C. Case No.92 of 1998 by the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Udit Nagar, Rourkela is set aside and it is left open for the opposite party-company, if so advised, to make such complaint before the Civil Court, Vadodara if aggrieved in any manner to the alleged forged document produced before the said court, who would be competent to deal with the same. Accordingly, the CRMC is allowed in terms of the directions noted above.