JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for quashing of the criminal complaint No. 101 of 2010 titled as Surinder Singh versus Surjit Singh and others (Annexure P-1) including the summoning order dated 1.12.2010 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question was not maintainable. As per Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the complaint could only have been filed by the Court as the alleged forgery was committed during the Court proceedings. 3. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that forged Will had been presented in the Court by the petitioners forged written statement on behalf of Mam Raj was presented in the Court. Some petitions person was produced in the Court by the petitioners as Mam Raj and on the basis of the said evidence, decree dated 18.9.1989 was got passed by the petitioners in their favour. The said decree was set aside and the Will dated 23.6.1989 was held to be forged and fabricated document upto the Apex Court. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on ‘Iqbal Singh Marwah and another versus Meenakshi Marwah and another, 2005(2) RCR (Criminal), 178’, wherein it was held as under:- “In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code 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. In the present case, the Will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody’s case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the said will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. In the present case, the Will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody’s case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the said will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court to perfectly contact and calls for no interference.” 5. In the present case, the Will in question was not tampered with after its presentation in the Court. Rather, a forged Will dated 23.6.1989 had been presented in the Court. Forged written statement was presented in the Court and on the basis of the said documents, decree was passed by the Civil Court. However, later on, decree dated 18.9.1989 as well as Will dated 23.6.1989 were held to be forged and fabricated documents in a civil suit filed by the complainant and other legal heirs of Mam Raj upto the Apex Court. In these circumstances, the complaint in question cannot be said to be not maintainable in view of bar created by Section 195(a)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. as the forged Will and written statement were presented in the Court. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————