JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Judges Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Rules of High Court, 1994 r/w Section 195 and 340 of CrpC to issue suitable direction to the officer of this Court to file criminal complaint against the plaintiff/Azizuk Karim before the appropriate forum for the offence of perjury, production of forged and fabricated document in judicial proceedings and commission of an offence punishable under Section 463, 464, 420, 468, 471 and 465 of Indian Penal Code.) The instant application reflects the manner in which devious minds engage the legal procedure for achieving their illegal end. These kind of litigants have no qualms in repeatedly derailing the administration of justice. In this endeavour they are also actively assisted by legal counsel. A brief background of the facts of the instant case is necessary in order to comprehend the above observation of this Court. Narration of facts: 2. The respondent herein was inducted as a tenant in respect of a portion (Ground floor premises) of the property bearing Old No.129, New Door No.98, Coral Merchant Street (Pavalakkara Street) Muthialpet, George Town, Chennai - 1, measuring an extent of 2163 Sq.ft. The respondent was inducted on the basis of a tenancy agreement dated 15.12.2012. The monthly rental was fixed at a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and a security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- was received from him. 3. In February 2019, the landlord, namely, the 1st applicant herein had called upon the respondent to vacate the premises as he had committed a default in the payment of the monthly rentals and had also not taken any steps to renew the agreement. Pursuant to this request the respondent herein sought three months time to vacate the premises and agreed to handover vacant possession of the property. 4. Having so agreed, the 1st applicant herein was in for a rude shock when he received summons in the suit O.S.No.1385 of 2019 from the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, filed by the respondent for a bare injunction restraining the 1st applicant from evicting the respondent from the premises except by due process of law. The schedule of properties given in the said suit was the premises bearing Door No.129, New Door No.98, Coral Merchant Street, Muthialpet, George Town, Chennai - 1. The schedule of properties given in the said suit was the premises bearing Door No.129, New Door No.98, Coral Merchant Street, Muthialpet, George Town, Chennai - 1. On receiving summons and perusing the plaint, the 1st applicant came to learn that the respondent had contended that on 18.02.2019 he was threatened with dispossession by the 1st applicant who had come to the property along with some rowdy elements. The respondent had also stated that once again on 01.03.2019 he had been threatened by the 1st applicant who came along with some rowdy elements and they had tried to attack the respondent and damage the articles. Therefore, the respondent was constrained to file the suit in question. 5. While the suit was pending, on 29.07.2019 the respondent herein would represent to the Court that an ex parte decree for specific performance had been obtained by him in the instant suit. It was only then that the Applicants herein had come to know that the instant suit has been filed on the basis of a fabricated sale agreement dated 02.06.2014 which is claimed to have been executed by the applicants and the defendants 1 to 5 and 8. This agreement is a rank forgery which was evident from the fact that the 8th defendant, P.S.Padma had died on 29.12.1989 and the 5th defendant, Gurunathan had died on 30.01.2010. Both these persons were dead even prior to the execution of the agreement. However, a perusal of the agreement and the receipts filed by the respondent as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 during the ex parte evidence, would show that they have been signed by these dead persons as well. The receipts are dated 10.02.2014, 03.03.2014, 05.04.2014, 10.05.2014 and 02.06.2014. 6. That apart, even before the ex parte decree in this suit the 4th defendant had died on 12.07.2018. On verifying the records, the applicants found that the address of the applicants and the other defendants given in the plaint was not their address but was an address in which a TASMAC shop being run. 6. That apart, even before the ex parte decree in this suit the 4th defendant had died on 12.07.2018. On verifying the records, the applicants found that the address of the applicants and the other defendants given in the plaint was not their address but was an address in which a TASMAC shop being run. The applicants are residing at Gudiyattam and are not living in Chennai and this fact is well known to the respondent since the suit O.S.No.1385 of 2019 had been filed showing the correct address of the 1st applicant which is the address given in the lease deed of the year 2012 and further enquiry reveals that the summons issued to this fictitious address has been received by two persons who describe themselves as the brothers of the defendants to whom the summons was addressed. The signature in this fabricated agreement bears no resemblance to the signature of the applicants herein even when examined with a naked eye. 7. The applicants had immediately filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and had also filed an application to condone the delay in filing the set aside application. This Court by order dated 19.11.2019 was pleased to condone the delay and the Court had recorded that despite several opportunities the respondent had not come forward to file his counter to the said application. Thereafter, by order dated 10.02.2020 the ex parte Judgment and decree was set aside and the Registry was directed to number the application now under consideration of this Court. Even for this application, the respondent herein had not come forward to file his counter affidavit though several opportunities were granted to him. 8. The instant application is filed invoking the provisions of Section 195 and Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for initiating a complaint against the respondent for offences of perjury, production of forged and fabricated documents in Judicial proceedings and commission of an offence punishable under Section 463, 464, 420, 468, 471, 465 of the IPC. The applicants have stated that the respondent had obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance in the instant suit on the basis of a forged and fabricated sale agreement dated 02.06.2014 which according to the respondent had been executed in his favour by all the defendants which included the applicants herein on 02.06.2014. 9. The applicants have stated that the respondent had obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance in the instant suit on the basis of a forged and fabricated sale agreement dated 02.06.2014 which according to the respondent had been executed in his favour by all the defendants which included the applicants herein on 02.06.2014. 9. The agreement is called into question by the applicants on the ground that two of the parties shown in the agreement had died much prior to the date of the execution of the agreement, one in the year 1989 and the other in the year 2010. The signatures found in the documents are also a rank forgery. Not only is the agreement fabricated and a rank forgery but the receipts which have been marked as Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6 have also been forged by the respondent. Therefore, in the light of the above, the applicants sought to have the complaint to lodged for forgery against the respondent. Submissions : 10. Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel who has entered appearance for the applicants would draw the attention of this Court to the death certificates of the 8th and 5th defendants which has been filed as documents 1 and 2 respectively in the typed set of papers. He would further take the Court to the lease agreement entered into between the respondent and the 1st applicant herein dated 15.12.2012. He would point out to the Court that the summons in the suit has been sent to all the defendants to the very same address, namely, No.4, Jaffer Syrang Street, Mannady, Chennai, but this address is that of a Government liquor shop (TASMAC). All the summons have been received on the very same day by two persons, namely, Anandan and Manogar and the Signatories have been described as the brothers of the defendants to whom summons had been issued. 11. In support of his contentions that the respondent is a person who is in the habit of fabricating documents, the counsel would submit that the respondent has been charged in an earlier case which is pending before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in C.C.No.10020 of 2017. The complaint against the respondent is that he had participated in the auction conducted by the Police Department and emerged the successful bidder in taking the scrap belonging to Guindy Police Station. The complaint against the respondent is that he had participated in the auction conducted by the Police Department and emerged the successful bidder in taking the scrap belonging to Guindy Police Station. Thereafter he had furnished a bogus demand draft and taken away the scrap from the Police station. However, when the demand draft was presented for an encashment it was found that the demand draft was a fabricated one. Thereafter, the respondent was arrested pursuant to the complaint of the Inspector of Police, Guindy Police Station. 12. According to the learned counsel for the applicants the same modus operandi has been taken up by the respondent in the instant case since in collusion with the Bailiff of the Court he has made it appear that the applicants and the other defendants had been served at address where they are not living. He would also rely on the following Judgments: 1. Azizul Kareem Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Forgery Team No.V, Chennai – Crl.O.P.No.4804 of 2020. 2. Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma – (1995) 1 SCC 421 3. Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah – (2005) 4 SCC 370 4. Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi – (2011) 8 SCC 249 5. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India – (2013) 15 SCC 539 6. Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs. BOC India Ltd., - (2016) 3 SCC 70 . 13. Once again the respondent/plaintiff has not chosen to file a counter to the application and this Court can only draw an inference that the respondent is not contesting the statements made in the said application. Only a memo of written arguments has been filed which is extracted herein below: “1. The petitioner humbly submit that in the above said application this Hon’ble court was pleased taken up the matter for final hearing at the time of arguments advanced by the counsel for the applicant had submitted that there was the controversial regarding the service of summons upon the applicant by the plaintiff through this Hon’ble court. The factual is that the disputed sale agreement scheduled property is nothing but three storied building which has housed a lot of portions one among them is housed with Tasmac shop. There are two set of numbers which allocated by Chennai corporation to the disputed building they are such as old no.4, new no. The factual is that the disputed sale agreement scheduled property is nothing but three storied building which has housed a lot of portions one among them is housed with Tasmac shop. There are two set of numbers which allocated by Chennai corporation to the disputed building they are such as old no.4, new no. 4 both are entirely different. 2. The petitioner humbly submit that as for as the Respondent plea is concerned, the disputed Document was produced by the p.s.kirubakaran and given only by the him with all of his brothers signature. The question now arisen whether the disputed sale agreement was created and fabricated by whom? The counsel one who have argued on behalf of the P.S.Kirubakaran would submit that there has been a criminal case of similar subject matter with same allegations which is in question pending on the file of the respondent police in crime no.68 of 2020 has been challenged by the way of quash petition in crl.op.no. 12312 of 2020 which was coming up for admission on 14/08/2020 before his LORDSHIP MR.JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN (item no.26) and directed the investigation officer to send the disputed sale agreement dated 02/06/2014 to signature expert opinion under 45 of Indian evidence act 1872. Therefore now the question as to who has forged the disputed sale agreement either by the plaintiff herein or by the defendant no.1 kirubakaran then only here in truth will come out after signature expert opinion reopen as per the order of this Hon’ble court. It is therefore this Hon’ble court may be pleased to record this memorandum of written arguments in A.No.944 of 2020 in C.S.No.212 of 2017 in order to secure the ends of justice”. 14. The defense in the written arguments is that the agreement of sale was prepared by the 1st applicant with the signatures of all the owners of the property and therefore the question which arises for consideration is as to who has created or fabricated the document. He would also state that in the proceedings initiated by him for quashing the complaint filed by the applicants in Crl.O.P.No.12312 of 2020, this Court had directed the Investigation Officer to send the disputed signatures for comparison and therefore this report should be awaited for. Apart from these submissions no other submission has been put forward by the respondent. Discussion : 15. Apart from these submissions no other submission has been put forward by the respondent. Discussion : 15. The application now for consideration by this Court is one under Section 195 and 340 of Criminal Procedure Code. The task entrusted to this Court is to only conduct a preliminary enquiry to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the applicants have made out a prima facie case for directing enquiry/investigation into the matter and whether any offence affecting the administration of justice has been committed in respect of the documents produced in Court or given in evidence. The Court is not called upon to express its opinion on merits of the allegation. The scope of enquiry is confined to see whether on the available materials the Court could decide whether the matter requires to be examined by the Criminal Court. 16. The applicants have contended that they have come into knowledge about the instant suit only on 29.07.2019 when the respondent herein had submitted that he had obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance. The suit O.S.No.1385 of 2019 was filed by the respondent on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai on 07.03.2019. In the instant suit the ex parte judgment had been pronounced on 30.07.2018. 17. A perusal of the contents of O.S.No.1385 of 2019 would show that nowhere in the suit filed for bare injunction the respondent has made any mention about the suit C.S.No.212 of 2017. On the contrary the respondent has stated that he has been inducted as a tenant on 15.12.2012 for which the tenancy agreement has also been executed. It is his case that since the applicants had started disturbing his possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a tenant he has come forward with the suit for bare injunction. He would further state that the 1st applicant had assured him that he could enjoy the suit property for life. The plaint does not contain any reference to C.S.No.212 of 2017 and was pointedly silent about the ex part decree. 18. The entire suit is based on the agreement of sale and receipts which have been signed by two persons who are dead. The plaint does not contain any reference to C.S.No.212 of 2017 and was pointedly silent about the ex part decree. 18. The entire suit is based on the agreement of sale and receipts which have been signed by two persons who are dead. That apart, the summons has not been served to the correct address of the defendants more particularly the 1st applicant whose address is clearly available in the lease deed entered into between the 1st applicant and the respondent herein. Therefore, the initial ex-parte Judgment for specific performance has been manipulated by the respondent on the basis of false and fabricated documents and a manipulated service of notice which is definitely aimed at obstructing the administration of Justice and deceiving the Court. The respondent has consciously and deliberately played fraud on Court and obtained the initial exparte judgment, which no doubt has been set aside now. 19. The respondent appears to have deliberately given a wrong address of the defendants in the instant suit. This is clearly evident from the fact that in the suit for bare injunction before the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai the respondent has given a correct address of the 1st applicant. Prima facie, this Court is convinced that the serious allegations put forward by the applicants appear to be true in the preliminary enquiry. The respondent has deliberately failed to file any counter in the proceedings refuting the specific allegations of the applicants and has failed to assist the Court. The 2nd paragraph of the written arguments would only contain an argument that the learned Judge dealing with quash petition had directed the parties to send the disputed signature for comparison and this Court should await the result of the same. However, a mere perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.1385 of 2019 filed on the file of I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai would clearly demonstrate the fraud and chicanery that has been made by the respondent. There is no doubt that the applicant on the facts has made out a prima facie case of fraud. It is also noteworthy that in all the proceedings including C.C.No.10020 of 2017 the counsels advising the respondent are the same. 20. Let us now juxtapose this with the legal principles as to the circumstances under which this Court can initiate a complaint. It is also noteworthy that in all the proceedings including C.C.No.10020 of 2017 the counsels advising the respondent are the same. 20. Let us now juxtapose this with the legal principles as to the circumstances under which this Court can initiate a complaint. Since the application is filed under Section 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, it is necessary to extract the said provisions: “Section 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 is 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 as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of 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 purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate: Provided that- (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Section 340: Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. Section 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 referred to 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) bind 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. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; ((b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.) (4) In this section," Court" has the same meaning as in section 195. 21. We are concerned in this case, with the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code. Since there was a conflict in two of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh Vs. Balbir Singh – (1996) 3 SCC 533 and Sachida Nand Singh Vs. 21. We are concerned in this case, with the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code. Since there was a conflict in two of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh Vs. Balbir Singh – (1996) 3 SCC 533 and Sachida Nand Singh Vs. State of Bihar – (1998) 2 SCC 493 with regard to the interpretation of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code the matter was placed before the Constitution Bench in the matter of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another – (2005) 4 SCC 370 . 22. The constitution Bench had extracted the principal controversy involved and its interpretation in the two judgments at Para 5, 6 and 7 of the Judgment which is extracted herein below: “5. The principal controversy revolves round the interpretation of the expression "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" occurring in clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The appellants place reliance on the following observations made in para 10 of the report in Surjit Singh vs. Balbir Singh : "10. It would thus be clear that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the foundation of forgery, if produced before the court or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) gets attracted and the criminal court is prohibited from taking cognizance of offence unless a complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed under Section 340 of the Code by or on behalf of the Court. The object thereby is to preserve purity of the administration of justice and to allow the parties to adduce evidence in proof of certain documents without being compelled or intimidated to proceed with the judicial process. The bar of Section 195 is to take cognizance of the offence covered thereunder." to contend that once the document is produced or given in evidence in Court, the taking of cognizance on the basis of private complaint is completely barred. 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 paragraphs 11, 12 and 23 which are being reproduced below : "11. 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 paragraphs 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." 7. On a plain reading clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 is capable of two interpretations. One possible interpretation is that when an offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 IPC is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document which is subsequently produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, a complaint by the Court would be necessary. The other possible interpretation is that when a document has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court and thereafter an offence described as aforesaid is committed in respect thereof, a complaint by the Court would be necessary. On this interpretation if the offence as described in the Section is committed prior to production or giving in evidence of the document in Court, no complaint by Court would be necessary and a private complaint would be maintainable. The question which requires consideration is which of the two interpretations should be accepted having regard to the scheme of the Act and object sought to be achieved.” 23. The Bench thereafter discussed the scheme of the Statutory provisions in paragraphs 10 and 11 which is reproduced herein below: “10. The question which requires consideration is which of the two interpretations should be accepted having regard to the scheme of the Act and object sought to be achieved.” 23. The Bench thereafter discussed the scheme of the Statutory provisions in paragraphs 10 and 11 which is reproduced herein below: “10. The scheme of the statutory provision may now be examined. Broadly, Section 195 Cr.P.C. deals with three distinct categories of offences which have been described in clauses (a), (b)(i) and (b)(ii) and they relate to (1) contempt of lawful authority of public servants, (2) offences against public justice, and (3) offences relating to documents given in evidence. Clause (a) deals with offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC which occur in Chapter X of the IPC and the heading of the Chapter is 'Of Contempt’s Of The Lawful Authority Of Public Servants'. These are offences which directly affect the functioning of or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant. Clause (b)(i) refers to offences in Chapter XI of IPC which is headed as 'Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice'. The offences mentioned in this clause clearly relate to giving or fabricating false evidence or making a false declaration in any judicial proceeding or before a Court of justice or before a public servant who is bound or authorized by law to receive such declaration, and also to some other offences which have a direct co-relation with the proceedings in a Court of justice (Sections 205 and 211 IPC). This being the scheme of two provisions or clauses of Section 195, viz., that the offence should be such which has direct bearing or affects the functioning or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice, the expression "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court" occurring in clause (b)(ii) should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not appear to be in tune with clauses (a)(i) and (b)(i) and consequently with the scheme of Section 195 Cr.P.C. This indicates that clause (b)(ii) contemplates a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. 11. Section 195(1) mandates a complaint in writing of the Court for taking cognizance of the offences enumerated in clauses (b) (i) and (b)(ii) thereof. Sections 340 and 341 Cr.P.C. which occur in Chapter XXVI give the procedure for filing of the complaint and other matters connected therewith. The heading of this Chapter is --'Provisions As To Offences Affecting The Administration Of Justice'. Though, as a general rule, the language employed in a heading cannot be used to give a different effect to clear words of the Section where there cannot be any doubt as to their ordinary meaning, but they are not to be treated as if they were marginal notes or were introduced into the Act merely for the purpose of classifying the enactments. They constitute an important part of the Act itself, and may be read not only as explaining the Sections which immediately follow them, as a preamble to a statute may be looked to explain its enactments, but as affording a better key to the constructions of the Sections which follow them than might be afforded by a mere preamble. (See Craies on Statute Law, 7th Ed. Pages 207, 209). The fact that the procedure for filing a complaint by Court has been provided in Chapter XXVI dealing with offences affecting administration of justice, is a clear pointer of the legislative intent that the offence committed should be of such type which directly affects the administration of justice, viz., which is committed after the document is produced or given in evidence in Court. Any offence committed with respect to a document at a time prior to its production or giving in evidence in Court cannot, strictly speaking, be said to be an offence affecting the administration of justice.” 24. Any offence committed with respect to a document at a time prior to its production or giving in evidence in Court cannot, strictly speaking, be said to be an offence affecting the administration of justice.” 24. After considering the various Judgments on the subject the Bench observed that in view of the language of Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) except in the interest of Justice. Therefore, a holding of a preliminary enquiry is contemplated to record a finding to the effect that in the interests of justice an enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195 (1) (b). 25. Ultimately the Bench upheld the view taken in Sachida Nand Singh's Case and held that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision has 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 “custodia legis”. 26. In a later Judgment of the Hon’able Supreme Court reported in (2014) 13 SCC 539 – Kishorbhai Gandubhai Pethani Vs. State of Gujarat and another, the Hon’able Supreme Court was considering the challenge to an order of the High Court dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the complaint made by the respondent in respect of tampering of medical report which is produced as an Exhibit before the Court. The Bench considered the Judgment of the Constitution Bench which had upheld the view taken in Sachida Nand Singh's case and observed as follows: “13. This Court in Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. considered this very aspect of the matter and relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar came to the conclusion that if the fabrication of false evidence takes place or the document is tampered with before filing in the court, the provisions of Section 195 CrPC would not be attracted. It is only when the document is tampered with after filing in the court that the bar provided in Section 195 CrPC would be attracted. It is only when the document is tampered with after filing in the court that the bar provided in Section 195 CrPC would be attracted. A similar view has been reiterated on the issue by this Court in P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana, Mahesh Chand Sharma v. State of U.P., C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Vimal Kumar Surana and C.P. Subhash v. Inspector of Police”. Ultimately the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant accused. 27. The dicta laid down in these cases are that where the fabrication has been done prior to it being filed before the Court then the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code will not be a fetter and a private complaint can be entertained. The bar will operate only if the tampering is done after the filing of the document into Court and when the document is custodic legis then it is only the Court that can set the criminal proceedings in motion by directing a complaint to be filed or by initiating the complaint by itself. 28. In Iqbal Singh Marwah's case the Hon’able Supreme Court has dealt with the pit falls if an enlarged interpretation was to be given to the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) by stating that if the bar where to operate even in the case of documents where the forgery has been done before the document was produced into Court it would be capable of misuse. The learned Judges had discussed this in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Judgment. As already stated the case on hand is one where the forgery has been done much before it was produced into the Court. In the Judgment of the Hon’able Supreme Court in Kishorbhai Gandubhai Pethani the learned Judges were once again dealing with a case where the manipulation/forgery had been done prior to the filing of the documents into Court. The learned Judges after relying upon paragraph 36 of the judgment reported in 1998 (6) SCC 689 - Mohan Singh Vs. Amar Singh elaborated on what a perjury is. They had observed as follows: "9. Perjury is an obstruction of justice. Deliberately making false statements which are material to the case, and that too under oath, amounts to crime of perjury. Amar Singh elaborated on what a perjury is. They had observed as follows: "9. Perjury is an obstruction of justice. Deliberately making false statements which are material to the case, and that too under oath, amounts to crime of perjury. Thus, perjury has always to be seen as a cause of concern for the judicial system. It strikes at the root of the system itself and disturbs the accuracy of the findings recorded by the court. Therefore, any person found guilty of causing perjury, has to be dealt with seriously as it is necessary for the working of the court as well as for the benefit of the public at large." 29. In the Judgment reported in (2019) 6 SCC 477 – Sasikala Pushpa and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Hon’able Supreme Court had observed that there can be no two views about the proposition that even if forgery is committed outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production into Court, it would also be treated as one affecting the administration of justice. 30. If the allegations about the fabrication of the agreement of sale and receipts (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6) are found to be true, in the case on hand, it is nothing but perjury as these documents have not only been filed but have also been marked as exhibits through the respondent as P.W.1. The respondent has marked the documents after swearing to the truth and validity of the documents. Not only has the respondent instituted the suit on the basis of forged and fabricated documents but has also manipulated the service of notice on the applicants and the other defendants with the intent of snatching an ex parte decree. Even here the respondent has manipulated the administration of Justice. The respondent has also not chosen to deny any of the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Therefore a prima facie case for lodging a complaint under Section 340 of the Code has been made out by the applicant. 31. Therefore, directions are issued to the Registrar General, Madras High Court, to initiate the complaint against the respondent.