JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed under section 341 of CrPC challenging the order dated 9.12.2019 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in ST No. 580/2019 whereby the Court has dismissed the application of the appellant filed under section 340 read with section 195 of CrPC for taking action against respondents No. 2 and 3 for forging several documents and using them for furnishing bail. 2. The sum and substance of the application preferred by the appellant before the trial Court is that the appellant had filed a complaint against respondents No. 2 and 3 as well as other persons involve in the matter for commission of offence of fraud/forgery and criminal conspiracy for fraudulently making/using false and fabricated documents as well the offence of forgery of public documents and bank accounts. The complaint has been registered as Crime No. 158/17 u/s. 420,465,467,468,471 and 120B of IPC against respondent No. 2 and charge-sheet has been filed, which is pending as ST No. 580/2019. 3. Respondent No. 2 filed an application under section 439 of the CrPC accompanied with affidavit of his wife respondent No. 3 to obtain bail in the aforesaid matter, but several misleading, false and contradictory with the earlier admitted facts were mentioned and material facts were concealed deliberately in this application. In affidavit dated 22.10.2013 filed before the Municipal Corporation for correction of name of father of Subhash Holkar, respondent No. 2 had categorically stated that correct name of father of his maternal uncle Subhash was Govindrao Holkar and not Dattatray Holkar. In spite of this admission, in the bail application, he mentioned that ^^¼3½ vkjksih ds ekek LoŒ Jh lqHkk"k firk nRrk=; xksfoUnjko gksydj ds firk nRrk=; xksfoUnjko gksydj ds LokfeRo dk ,d edku----** 4. Respondent No. 2 conspired with his maternal uncle Subhash during his lifetime and prepared/used forged and fabricated documents and deliberately represented him (Subhash) before different Courts, Banks and other departments by different identities such as Subhash Borade/Subhsh Holkar/Subhash Dattatray/Subhash Govindrao. Even after his (Subhash) death, he prepared false and fabricated documents and on that basis mentioned name of his maternal uncle as Subhash Borade before the Andhra Bank and has thereby obtained wrongful gain. Even after his (Subhash) death, he prepared false and fabricated documents and on that basis mentioned name of his maternal uncle as Subhash Borade before the Andhra Bank and has thereby obtained wrongful gain. In the bail application also, to mislead the trial Court and to obtain bail, he (respondent No. 2) suppressed material and admitted facts and mentioned name of his maternal uncle as Subhash Holkar, Subhash Dattatray Holkar, Subhash Govindrao Holkar and Subhash Dattatray Govindrao Holkar showing himself to be son of Subhash Holkar and had filed fabricated documents like Voter ID cards to that effect. 5. In bail application and in affidavit filed in support of this application, respondents No. 2 and 3 have made false averments with respect to their income. In para 2 of the affidavit; it is falsely mentioned that there is no other earning male member in their family except Respondent No. 2. 6. But the trial Court failed to appreciate all these facts and documents. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order, which suffers from illegality and perversity, be set aside and the trial Court be directed to take action under section 340 CrPC as prayed for or to decide the application of the appellant afresh. 7. Reliance has been placed on State of Goa v. Jose Maria Albert @ Robert Vales, 2018 Cri.L.J. SC 1395, Peela Gangadhar v. Add. Munsif Magistrate Court Anakapalli 2019 Cri.L.J. Hyderabad High Court and Sandeep Gupta v. Anuradha Pael @ Anuradha Gupta 2019 Cri.L.J. 4414 M.P. High Court wherein the Courts have held that if preliminary inquiry shows adequate material impelling action, the magistrate is required to take action. 8. I have heard the counsel as well as the petitioner, who himself is a practicing lawyer, at length and have perused the record. 9. The order of the trial Court shows that as per allegations of the petitioner, respondents No. 2 has fabricated Voter Identity Card No. MP/37/273/60020 and 2 PAN cards No. AIMPH 5338J and AIMPH 5338L with two different father's name and addresses of Subhash and using them, he opened FD of Rs. 500/- with Paraspar Sahkari Bank and opened saving account with Jawahar Marg Branch of Andhra Bank. 500/- with Paraspar Sahkari Bank and opened saving account with Jawahar Marg Branch of Andhra Bank. By using this voter I.D. and PAN cards, he purchased a Volks wagen car No. MP 20 CB 3775 and a Scooty bearing registration No. MP 09 SN 0430 and applied and obtained 2 death certificates of Subhash with 2 different father names. He withdrew some maturity amount of fixed deposit of Subhash. 10. The record of this case and also of MCRC No. 53125/2019 (bail application of Respondent No. 2 Jitendra Borade) reflects that complainant Vishal Borade is first cousin or son of brother of father of respondent No. 2. Subhash Holkar was uncle (mama) or brother of mother of Respondent No. 2. Father of Subash Holkar was Dattatray Holkar and his grandfather was Govind Rao Holkar. As per tradition prevailing in the society, Subhash Holkar used to mention his father's name, somewhere alone, somewhere with his grandfather's name and some other places used to mention their names (father and grandfather's names) in abbreviated form. Thus sometime, he was using Subhash Holkar S/o Dattatray Holkar, sometime Subhash Holkar s/o Govind Rao Dattatray Holkar and sometime Subhash Holkar s/o D.G. Holkar. Subhash died intestate on 8.10.2013. Admittedly he was treating the petitioner as his son. During his lifetime, he nominated him in his bank and other official documents. After his death, the petitioner applied for withdrawal of fixed deposits of Subhash Holkar and mentioned his father's name as Datatray Holkar, along with a death certificate obtained in the same name, but in the bank, there was some difference in the name of father, therefore, bank asked him to get it corrected (death certificate), therefore, he applied for another death certificate mentioning the father's name as suggested by the bank. Substantially, there appears no difference in Subash Holkar s/o Dattatray Holkar or Subash Holkar S/o Govind Rao Dattatray Holkar or Subash Holkar s/o D.G. Holkar, as they are one and the same person. He received Rs. 2107.60/- in his bank account from the FDR of Subhash Holkar. Real brother of deceased Subhash Holkar - Santosh, Hemant and Devdas have never disputed all these facts and have never opposed the action of the petitioner. In his police statement in Crime No. 158/17 registered at Police Station - Sarafa, District-Indore Brother of Subhash; Captain Santosh has supported the respondent No. 2. 11. Real brother of deceased Subhash Holkar - Santosh, Hemant and Devdas have never disputed all these facts and have never opposed the action of the petitioner. In his police statement in Crime No. 158/17 registered at Police Station - Sarafa, District-Indore Brother of Subhash; Captain Santosh has supported the respondent No. 2. 11. The facts that Subhash was son of Dattatray Holkar and grandson of Govind Holkar and that Subhash had nominated respondent No. 2 in the bank accounts etc. have not been controverted by the appellant. 12. There is serious family dispute regarding ancestral property between the petitioner and the complainant. Various civil matters are also pending between them. 13. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellant on the ground that no forgery is committed in the judicial proceedings or in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, therefore, action cannot be taken under section 340 CrPC Nothing contrary is pointed out by the appellant. The law is well settled that action under section 340 CrPC can only be taken when any offence described in section 463 or punishable under sections 471, 475, 476 of IPC is committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. All the allegations of the appellant are that the private respondents have forged or fabricated some false documents out of Court. These documents are subject matter of Crime No. 158/17 registered against respondent No. 2 and is pending for trial. But there is nothing to show that any forgery is committed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 in the Court proceedings or in the document produced in the Court proceeding. Therefore, there is no ground for taking a different view than the view taken by the learned trial Court in regard to the complicity of the respondents. 14. Following the principles of law laid down in the judgments cited by the appellant, the learned trial Court has meticulously analyzed the documents placed on record. There is no scope to discredit the appreciation as sought by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained. The admission is declined and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits