ORDER : 1. This Crl.MC has been filed against the order of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy in Crl.M.P.2940/2021 dated 8.7.2021 by which the Magistrate refused to make reference under section 156(3) CrPc for investigation to police with respect to offences punishable under sections 192, 195 and 211 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 2. Petitioner is the complainant in Crl.M.P.2940/2021. The complaint was filed under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C to take cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the respondents in the above said Criminal MP (copy of which is produced as Annexure a) under Sections 192, 195, 211, 465, 469, 120B r/w Section 34 IPC. It is alleged that the petitioner was a trustee of the newly formed religious congregation in the name and style Emperor Emanuel Church 'Zion' situated at Muriyad in Thrissur District. On account of the differences of opinion with the first respondent in the complaint , who is in control over the members as well as the devotees ,complainant was forced to leave the congregation and resign from the trusteeship and re-join the original Parental congregation namely the Catholic church. A lot of other families who joined the allegiance to this new congregation also left and came back to Catholic church. Being annoyed by the consequences on account of the withdrawal of the complainant and the other family members from the Emperor Emanuel Church 'Zion', the respondents started retaliatory measures against the petitioner and many of the earlier trustees. A complaint was filed against a former trustee by name Johnson in the year 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 451 and 506 IPC alleging about an offence which is said to have happened during 2016. 8th respondent in Annexure (a) complaint convened press meeting and made several and serious allegations against the petitioner. Petitioner alleged to have secured the audio and video clippings and telephonic conversations of the persons involved in this controversy relating to rape alleged to have taken place during the 7th month of 2016. According to the petitioner, these audio video tapes and the Malayalam translations would substantiate the contention of the petitioner that the entire acts were part of conspiracy hatched between the respondents and it was done at the instance of the first respondent in Annexure-(a) who is all in all in the congregation. According to the petitioner, these audio video tapes and the Malayalam translations would substantiate the contention of the petitioner that the entire acts were part of conspiracy hatched between the respondents and it was done at the instance of the first respondent in Annexure-(a) who is all in all in the congregation. The acts of the respondents in Annexure-(a) are punishable under Sections 192, 195, 211, 465, 469, 120B r/w 34 IPC. A private complaint Annexure-(a) was filed before the Magistrate which is numbered as Crl.M.P.2940/2021 requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence. But the Magistrate as per the impugned order forwarded the complaint to SHO, Aloor police station directing to register the crime against the respondents excluding the offences punishable under Sections 192, 195 and 211 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner came up before this Court. 3. The learned counsel would contend that the Magistrate has not stated any reasons for not directing police to investigate the offence punishable under Sections 192, 195 and 211 IPC. The bar under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) and 195(1)(b)(ii) r/w 340 CrPc also would not apply since there is no allegation in the complaint that any offences alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any court or with respect to any document produced in any court. The learned counsel relies on Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah ( 2005 (4) SCC 370 ) and also Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Meni etc ( AIR 2020 SC 4247 ). Hence he sought for a direction to the Magistrate to refer Annexure-(a) complaint to Aloor police station directing to register crime against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 192, 195 and 211 IPC also. 4. Notice was issued to the respondent. Respondent appeared through the learned Public Prosecutor. Heard both sides. 5. At the outset it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is not a speaking order. According to him though the Magistrate refused to make reference of offences under Sections 192, 195 and 211 IPC, no reason whatsoever has been stated for the refusal. 6. Heard both sides. 5. At the outset it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is not a speaking order. According to him though the Magistrate refused to make reference of offences under Sections 192, 195 and 211 IPC, no reason whatsoever has been stated for the refusal. 6. Normally it is not necessary to pass a speaking order while making a reference of private complaint instituted under section 190 (1)(a) CrPc for investigation by the police, under section 156(3) CrPC (See KanaKSinh Halhsinh Jadeju V. Balbhadrasinh Narendrasinh Jhala 1988 CeCJ675 and Sinha G.P.V state of Gujarat and others. 2003 CrLJ 4538 ). However, when Magistrate refused to make reference with respect to all offences alleged in the complaint and wanted to exclude certain offences from the reference, judicial propriety demands a court of law to state the reasons for the refusal. Only then the party who filed the complaint and the higher forums before which the order is challenged could properly analyze the factors which led the Magistrate to refuse the reference of the particular offences. So the order impugned is bad for that reason. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate might have thought of the bar under Section 195 r/w Section 340 Cr.P.C, while refusing to make reference of offences under Sections 192, 195 and Section 211 IPC. Whether that is legal and proper is the question that arise for consideration in this proceedings. It would be apposite in this context to extract Section 195 Cr.P.C which reads thus : “195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. Whether that is legal and proper is the question that arise for consideration in this proceedings. It would be apposite in this context to extract Section 195 Cr.P.C which reads thus : “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, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate]. ….............................. 8. On going through Section 195(1)(b)(i) and (1)(b)(ii) it could be seen that the bar to take cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(i) is with respect to offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 of IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court. 9. Sub-clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 prescribes any Court to take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, 475, 476 of IPC 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. 9. Sub-clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 prescribes any Court to take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, 475, 476 of IPC 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. So it is explicit from the above sub-clauses that the bar under Section 195 would come into play only when the offence under Section 193 to 196 or 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 alleged to have committed in relation to or in any proceeding in any Court. Bar under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) would come into play only when the offence under Section 463, 471, 475, 476 IPC is alleged to have been committed with respect to a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. 10. Chapter XXVI of Cr.P.C deals with provisions as to Offences Affecting Administration of Justice. Section 340 provides the procedure to be adopted in cases mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C, which is relevant in this context to be extracted which reads as follows : 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 subsection (4) of section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court making the complaint in 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 authorize in writing in this behalf. (4) In this section," Court" has the same meaning as in section 195. 11. On reading Section 340 Cr.P.C, it would be clear that wide discretion has been given to the Court, when an application is made to it under the Section or otherwise also would indicate that if the Court is of opinion that the interest of justice demands that enquiry should be conducted into any offence referred to in clause (b)(i) 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 proceeding in that Court, the Court may conduct a preliminary enquiry as it deems necessary and record a finding and make a complaint and send to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction etc.. 12. Paragraph 10, 15, 23 and 33 of Iqbal Singh Marwah relied on by the learned counsel is relevant in this context to be extracted which read thus : “10. 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. Section 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'. Section 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. xxx xxx xxx 15. The other case which is the sheet-anchor of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is Surjit Singh vs. Balbir Singh 1996(3) SCC 533 . The facts as stated in paras 1 & 11 of the report show that a criminal complaint was filed by the respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120 B IPC alleging that the appellants had conspired and fabricated an agreement dated 26.7.1978 and had forged the signature of Smt. Dalip Kaur and on the basis thereof, they had made a claim to remain in possession of a house. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 27.9.1983. The appellants thereafter filed a civil suit on 9.2.1984 wherein they produced the agreement. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 27.9.1983. The appellants thereafter filed a civil suit on 9.2.1984 wherein they produced the agreement. It may be noticed that the cognizance by the criminal Court had been taken much before filing of the Civil Suit wherein the agreement had been filed. During the course of discussion, the court not only noticed Gopalkrishna Menon (supra), but also quoted extensively from Patel Lalji Bhai (supra). Reference was then made to Sanmukh Singh vs. The King AIR 1950 Privy Council 31 and Sushil Kumar vs. State of Haryana AIR 1988 SC 419 wherein it has been held that the bar of Section 195 would not apply if the original document had not been produced or given in evidence in Court. Then comes the passage in the judgment (para 10 of the reports) which we have reproduced in the earlier part of our judgment. The observations therein should not be understood as laying down anything contrary to what has been held in Patel Lalji Bhai, but was made in the context that bar contained in Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) would not be attracted unless the original document was filed. It is for this reason that in the very next paragraph, after observing that the cognizance had been taken prior to filing of the civil suit and the original agreement in Court, the view taken by the High Court that the Magistrate could proceed with the trial of the criminal case was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. xxx xxx xxx 23. That apart, the section which we are required to interpret is not a penal provision but is part of a procedural law, namely, Code of Criminal Procedure which elaborately gives the procedure for trial of criminal cases. The provision only creates a bar against taking cognizance of an offence in certain specified situations except upon complaint by Court. A penal statute is one upon which an action for penalties can be brought by a public officer or by a person aggrieved and a penal act in its wider sense includes every statute creating an offence against the State, whatever is the character of the penalty for the offence. The principle that a penal statute should be strictly construed, as projected by the learned counsel for the appellants can, therefore, have no application here. xxx xxx xxx 33. The principle that a penal statute should be strictly construed, as projected by the learned counsel for the appellants can, therefore, have no application here. xxx xxx xxx 33. In view of the discussion made above we are of the opinion that Sachinda Nand Singh ( 1998 (2) SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (cri) 660 has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. S.196 (I) (b) (ii) CrPC 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 ie. during the time when the document was in custodia legis” 13. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., was also relied on by the learned counsel. Paragraph 22 of the said decision is extracted hereunder 22. Contrasted with Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C speaks of offences described in Section 463, and punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 of the IPC, when such offences are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. What is conspicuous by its absence in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are the words “or in relation to”, making it clear that if the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are attracted, then the offence alleged to have been committed must be committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis, and not an offence that may have occurred prior to the document being introduced in court proceedings. Indeed, it is this distinction that is vital in understanding the sheet anchor of the Appellant’s case namely, this Court’s judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra). 14. The dictum laid down in Iqbal Singh Marwah, has also been followed and discussed in detail in the above decision. 15. So as per the settled principles of law, there is no room for any doubt to come to a conclusion that once offences under Section 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 228 IPC is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C will be attracted. So as per the settled principles of law, there is no room for any doubt to come to a conclusion that once offences under Section 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 228 IPC is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C will be attracted. Whereas section 195(1)(b)(ii) speaks about the bar in taking cognizance of the offences described in section 463, 471, 475, 476 IPC, when such offences are alleged to have committed with respect to a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in court. In other words that is with respect to an offence committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis and not an offence that have been occurred prior to a document being introduced in Court proceedings. 16. In the present case, on going through Annexure-a complaint the entire allegation is with respect to a criminal conspiracy at the instance of the 1st respondent and her henchmen in forging documents to file a fake rape case against one C.C.Johnson at the instance of one girl in their institution. So the averments in the complaint does not disclose a commission of any offence in relation to any proceeding in any court or fabrication or forging of any document which is pending in any court with respect to any proceeding. To put it in other words, there is no averment in the complaint with respect to a document that is custodia legis and hence the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C r/w Section 340 Cr.P.C prima facie not seems to be attracted. So the impugned order passed by the Magistrate to register the case except the one under Section 192, 195 and 211 of the IPC is illegal and arbitrary. 17. In the result, Crl.M.C allowed, the impugned order is altered and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy is directed to refer Annexure-(a) complaint as such for the offence punishable under Sections 192, 195 and 211 IPC also to be investigated by the police under section 156(3) CrPC. It is also hereby made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the allegations in Annexure-(a) complaint.