Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1736 (GUJ)

AMIT JAYANTILAL SHAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2024-08-16

GITA GOPI

body2024
JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 27.08.2021 passed below Exh.16 in Criminal Case No. 3624 of 2021, rejecting the application prayed for not to frame charge, and challenging Exh.17 the framing of charge. Further prayer has been made for holding that the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the alleged offences including the offences under sections 193 and 471 of I.P.C. based on private complaint filed by respondent no. 2. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are narrated herein-below: 2.1 The respondent no. 2-original complainant, who is presently engaged as practicing advocate at Patan, was earlier proprietor of Navkar Chemists and Banas Pharma Distributor was in the business of pharmaceuticals. The present petitioners are the ex-office bearers of Patan Chemists’ Association, against whom the complainant has filed the impugned private complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan on 27.02.2007, and by order dated 27.02.2007, the learned Magistrate ordered inquiry under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which was registered as M-Case No. 4/2007. 2.2 It is stated in the complaint that, earlier, the complainant filed one RTPE Case No. 25/2004 against the office bearers before Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘MRTP’ for short). It is alleged that accused nos.2 and 3 had placed translated copy of the letter written by the Association before the MRTP Commission and upon order passed by the Commission, produced one reply dated 15.03.1999, which is allegedly given to complainant-respondent no. 2, wherein two pages were changed by the Association. 2.3 The complainant had sent reply dated 08.03.1999 and reply dated 15.03.1999 to private Forensic examiner, and as per the report, it is alleged that the office bearers of Association have forged the said reply at Patan and thereby committed offence under sections 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 114, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners are the office bearers of Patan Chemist Association and North Gujarat Chemist Association. The opponent-complainant had moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan stating that he was having the business of medicine in the name of ‘Navkar Chemist’ and ‘Banas Pharma Distributors’ in the district of Patan. 3. The petitioners are the office bearers of Patan Chemist Association and North Gujarat Chemist Association. The opponent-complainant had moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan stating that he was having the business of medicine in the name of ‘Navkar Chemist’ and ‘Banas Pharma Distributors’ in the district of Patan. The association has given a lifetime boycott; as a result his business got closed. 3.1 The complaint, which was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate is with the fact that the accused nos.3 and 4, Nikhil Manjulbhai Raval and Mukeshbhai Mangalbhai Patel, had given the reply dated 08.03.1999 to his notice, and complainant had produced the true copy of reply before the MRTP commission, New Delhi. After the notice for appearance from the MRTP Commission, the accused produced the reply in MRTP to RTP Case No. 25/2004, and in the reply at paragraph no. 18.2 they had contended as under: “The contents of Para 18.2 are incorrect and denied and the Petitioner is put to the strict proof the same. It is submitted that the Complainant herein has replaced true contents of the letter written by the then President of Patan Chemist Association by replacing the relevant pages of the letter. A true translated copy of the actual letter written by the then President/Secretary, Patan Association is being filed herewith marked as Annexure-3.” 3.2 By the reply the present petitioners had alleged that the complainant before MRTP had replaced the relevant pages of the letter and that they have produced the true translated copy of the actual letter at Annex.3. 3.3 The complaint before the Magistrate is to the effect that the accused for own ulterior purpose boycotted him from the business of medicines to cause financial loss to the complainant and with ill-intention, in aid of each other, had produced forged documents before MRTP by stating it to be true with the intention to falsify the original document produced by him, and thereby has committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. 3.4 The dispute raised was regarding the reply given by the office bearers of Patan Chemist Association. The reply dated 08.03.1999, which the complainant had produced before the MRTP Commission was alleged by the present petitioners/accused as replaced and was not the original. They by reply stated to have produced the true translated copy of the actual letter at Annex.3. 3.4 The dispute raised was regarding the reply given by the office bearers of Patan Chemist Association. The reply dated 08.03.1999, which the complainant had produced before the MRTP Commission was alleged by the present petitioners/accused as replaced and was not the original. They by reply stated to have produced the true translated copy of the actual letter at Annex.3. 3.5 So the dispute raised by the present petitioners was that the document dated 08.03.1999 was not original and the relevant pages were replaced. They did not produce the original but were relying on the English translated copy, Annex.3. 3.6 The complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate stated that he had made a representation about Annex.3 before MRTP Commission, and that the commission on 20.11.2006 ordered the accused to produce Annex.3 with Gujarati copy and directed to give a copy to the complainant. 3.7 The complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate stated that the English translated copy of Annex.3, which he had received from the clerk of accused advocate after the order of the MRTP Commission was forged, while stating that true copy in Gujarati language was not produced, in spite of the order of MRTP Commission. Thus, in view of the complaint, the forgery alleged is for the English translated copy. 3.8 Therefore, according to the complainant on 26.04.2006, he informed the Commission that he has not received the Gujarati language copy. Thus, an order on 26.04.2006 passed by the Commission, a Gujarati copy forged in the month of August, 2006, was produced before the MRTP Commission and a copy of which was to be given by the accused to the complainant. 3.9 The complainant further before the Chief Judicial Magistrate states that by producing false and forged document and using them as true before the MRTP Commission the accused have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating and therefore he was constrained to file complaint. 3.10 It was alleged by the complainant that the documents were forged at the office of ‘Patan Chemist Association’ and as per his information the forgery was committed by manipulating the records of the original file of the Association and have given place to forge document. 3.10 It was alleged by the complainant that the documents were forged at the office of ‘Patan Chemist Association’ and as per his information the forgery was committed by manipulating the records of the original file of the Association and have given place to forge document. 3.11 The complainant has sought to compare the original document dated 08.03.1999 in his possession and the photo copy produced by the accused dated 15.03.1999, by sending them for forensic examination to Shri Anil Kumar Mathur at Mumbai for his opinion. The opinion of the expert is to the effect that two pages of the xerox copy produced before the MRTP Commission were forged. The complainant stated that an offence has been committed under section 193 of the IPC, and for that purpose, the MRTP Commission has the authority to initiate proceeding and hence had given a separate application. 3.12 The complainant has stated that, before the MRTP Commission, the document dated 08.03.1999 bears the seal of ‘Patan Chemist Association’ and when he contacted the former president Natwarlal Pursotamdas of Patan Chemist Association, he was informed that when the charge was given to accused nos.3 and 4, the round seal was handed over to Patan Chemist Association and, thus, in view of the complainant with malafide intention the accused had tried to prove the document produced by him dated 08.03.1999 as false. 3.13 According to the complainant a request letter dated 05.03.1999 was given by him to accused no. 3 personally at Patan Chemist Association Conference Hall and reply dated 08.03.1999 was given by accused nos. 3 and 4, and in spite of knowing that fact, in the forged document, they had stated of giving the letter dated 05.03.1999 at ‘Gita Medical Agency’ and, thus, according to the complainant it is clear that the first two pages of the document are forged. 3.14 According to the complainant, the forged document dated 15.03.1999 was prepared at Patan-Gujarat and the photocopy of the said document was produced before the MRTP Commission, Delhi while the original document is in the possession of the accused, and, thus made a prayer to seize the same. 3.15 On the basis of the complaint, the learned Magistrate has sent the complaint under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by outward no. 3.15 On the basis of the complaint, the learned Magistrate has sent the complaint under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by outward no. 22/2007, which came to be registered and, after investigation, C-Summary report was filed by the Police Sub-inspector, Patan City dated 02.06.2007, which was sent to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 11.06.2007. The learned Magistrate declined to accept C-Summary, and further directed the Patan City Police Station for a fair and independent investigation and thereafter to file a proper and sufficient investigation report. The order was dated 13.11.2009 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan. After receiving the copy of the C-Summary Report, the petitioners herein found that for about 10 years, no order was passed by the learned Magistrate upon the C-Summary report, nor were they made aware about the Summary Report. Thereafter, petitioner no. 2 preferred R.T.I application dated 09.07.2021 before Patan City, A Division Police Station; the C-Summary Report dated 24.03.2011 was received by communication dated 31.07.2021. Thus, it is contended by the petitioners that criminal case remained pending in the Court of learned Magistrate for about 10 years and no order was passed by the learned Magistrate upon the C-Summary Report dated 24.03.2011, and after a period of 14 years suddenly investigating officer arrested the petitioner nos.1 to 3 on 22.03.2021. The prayer of remand was sought by the Investigating Officer, which was rejected for petitioner nos.1 and 3 while one day remand was granted for petitioner no. 2 on the ground that he was working as Secretary of the Association at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, petitioner nos. 1 to 3 had been released on regular bail, and petitioner no. 4 was on anticipatory bail. 3.16 The petitioners contend that they had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 7739 of 2021 before this Court for quashing the FIR, by an order dated 18.06.2021, an urgent notice was issued making it returnable on 01.07.2021 observing that if the charge-sheet is filed, it would be open for the applicants to challenge the same in the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No. 7739 of 2021. The investigating officer filed a charge-sheet on 17.06.2021, and it is contended, that till date, no order has been passed by the Magistrate upon the C-Summary Report dated 24.03.2011. Application No. 7739 of 2021. The investigating officer filed a charge-sheet on 17.06.2021, and it is contended, that till date, no order has been passed by the Magistrate upon the C-Summary Report dated 24.03.2011. It has been contended that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without giving any cogent reason rejected the second C- Summary report dated 24.03.2011 by order dated 31.07.2021. 3.17 The petitioners had made a prayer under section 410 of Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to transfer Criminal Case No. 3624 of 2021 from the Court of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to any other Court in Patan district on the ground that undue haste has been shown by 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate upon the application filed by respondent no. 2, who is a practicing Advocate at Patan. The application came to be rejected on 31.08.2021. It is contended by the petitioners that on 27.08.2021, even before passing an order on the application under section 410 of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate insisted to frame charge and, therefore, the petitioner moved an application dated 27.08.2021 inter alia drawing attention of the learned Magistrate that since the charge- sheet is filed also under sections 471 and section 193 Cr.P.C. along with other offences of I.P.C., the learned Court cannot take cognizance in view of the provision of section 195 Cr.P.C. therefore, prayed that no charge be framed for the alleged offence. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah appearing for the petitioners, contended that without appreciating the provision of section 195 Cr.P.C. and even the various judgments which were cited by the petitioners, the application came to be dismissed by order dated 27.08.2021 and on the very same day immediately charge was framed against the petitioners under sections 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 114, 34, 120B, 175 and 193 of IPC. 4.1 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the order dated 27.08.2021 and the action of framing of charge below Exh.17 are ex facie illegal, unjust and against the provision of Cr.P.C. The respondent no. 2, practicing advocate, moved an application to conduct the Criminal Case No. 3624 of 2021 on day-to-day basis, and having come to know about the same, the petitioners had moved this High Court for quashing the FIR. 4.2 Advocate Mr. 2, practicing advocate, moved an application to conduct the Criminal Case No. 3624 of 2021 on day-to-day basis, and having come to know about the same, the petitioners had moved this High Court for quashing the FIR. 4.2 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the petitioners had moved an application below Exh.16 inter alia praying not to frame charge, as there was specific bar of section 195 Cr.P.C. as Court cannot take cognizance of offence punishable under sections 471 and 193 of I.P.C., the application came to be rejected and the charges were framed immediately. 4.3 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwa Vs. Gulab Singh, (2005) 4 SCC 370 , would not apply to the facts of the case as the same was distinguished in the judgment of Bhandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd and Anr. Vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni, AIR 2020 SC 4247 . 4.4 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that difference between the offences mentioned in section 195(1)(b)(i) and section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. was taken into consideration in Bhandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and was noted that where the facts mentioned in the complaint attracts the provision of section 191 to 193 of I.P.C. section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. applies. Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that to attract the bar, the alleged offence under IPC does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any court. 4.5 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is of creating forged English translation and forged Gujarati copy for producing before the MRTP Commission. Referring to the proceedings before the MRTP Commission, Mr. Shah submitted that the application before the MRTP Commission as RTPE No. 72/2001 dated 04.03.2003, was filed by M/s. Navkar Chemist and Mr. 4.5 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is of creating forged English translation and forged Gujarati copy for producing before the MRTP Commission. Referring to the proceedings before the MRTP Commission, Mr. Shah submitted that the application before the MRTP Commission as RTPE No. 72/2001 dated 04.03.2003, was filed by M/s. Navkar Chemist and Mr. Pankajkumar Bachubhai Velani dealing as proprietor of M/s Banas Pharma Distributors, against the Federation of Gujarat State Chemist & Druggist Association, Rajkot through its President arraigning as respondent nos.1(b) to 1(e) as the Honorary Secretary, Secretary of Action Committee, Vice-president as a party, and North Gujarat Chemist Association from 2(b) to 2(c) as Honorary Secretary and Committee member as well as Patan Unit Chemist Association and Secretary, Patan Chemist Association, and 4(b) to 4(d) as Past President and the present Secretary and the Vice President. 4.6 The application was moved under section 10(a)(i) and 10(a)(iv) of the MRTP Act, 1969, where the preliminary objection was also raised that the complaint at the instance of Pankajkumar Bachubhai Velani was not maintainable. 4.7 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the contention was raised at Para No. 12.9 in the preliminary objection on behalf of respondent no. 4-Patan Chemists Association to the complaint under section 10 of the MRTP Act. Mr. Shah submitted that ‘Patan Chemist Association’ had taken objection to the reply dated 08.03.1999, produced by the complainant, alleging it to be not genuine document. 4.8 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the Contempt Application No. 03 of 2002 arising out of R.T.P.E. No. 72 of 2001, was also filed. Mr. Shah stated that MRTP Commission in proceeding under I.A. No. 72 of 2001 in R.T.P.E. No. 72 of 2001, dated 26.09.2001, did not find any ground to continue the proceedings noting that complainant has been granted relief by the respondent, as sought by them in the complaint and, therefore, the application came to be disposed of. 4.9 Referring to the order, Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that MRTP Commission did not find the allegation as correct, and specific undertaking given by respondent no. 4.9 Referring to the order, Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that MRTP Commission did not find the allegation as correct, and specific undertaking given by respondent no. 4 was taken note of, whereby it was brought to the notice of MRTP Commission that it had issued the circular bringing to the notice of its members that no such instruction has been issued to boycott the complainant, and all the members are free to deal with them and buy from them and sell to them, thus, on the undertaking, the proceedings were discontinued. 5. The oral order of the MRTP Commission dated 26.09.2001 is reproduced herein-under: “The present complaint has been filed by the complainants against the respondents wherein it is inter-alia pleaded that the respondent association has issued circular to all its members not to deal with the complainants and to buy or sell the medicines to them, though the respondent Association has been formed to look into the interest of all the parties. The attitude of the respondents, accordingly, constitutes restrictive trade practices which may be inquired into and an order of cease and desist by passed. The respondents The Federation of Gujarat State Chemists & Druggists, North Gujarat Chemists Association, Patan Unit Chemists Association and Patan, Chemists Association have filed their replies. It is categorically stated in paragraph 3 of reply of respondent no. 4 as follows: “Without prejudice to the above, it is stated that since an allegation has been made in the above complaint that oral instructions had been issued to boycott the complainant, even though there was no such instructions issued, with a view to ensuring that there is no mis-apprehension on the part of any person in this regard, the Association has issued a circular to all its members bringing to their notice that no instruction has been issued to boycott the complainant and that all the members are free to deal with complainant and buy from him and sell to him. A copy of the said circular issued to all the members by post under certificate of posting is annexed hereto as Annexure-A.” The circular, which is filed as annexure 'A' to the reply of respondent 4, has also been issued wherein the specific allegation of the complainants have been denied and it is contended that no directions to boycott them have been issued by Patan Chemists. This communication reads as below: “An allegation has been made by Shri Pankajkumar Bachubhai Velani Proprietor M/s. Navkar Chemist and M/s Banas Pharma Distributors in certain proceedings before the MRTP Commission that the North Gujarat Chemist Association and Patan Chemist Association have issued directions to boycott him. This allegation is not correct. No directions to boycott him or his companies have been issued by Patan Chemist Association or North Gujarat Chemist Association. To ensure that there is no mis-apprehension in this regard on his part or on the part of any person, we are sending this letter to you to make it clear that there was no such boycott and there is no such boycott; and you are free to deal with him and he is also free to deal with you and the association has not placed any restriction in this regard.” In view of the specific undertaking given by respondent no. 4 that it has issued a circular to all its members bringing to their notice that no instructions have been issued to boycott the complainants and that all the members are free to deal with them and buy from them and sell to them. The complainants are stated to be members of Patan Chemist Association and a specific undertaking as filed by it is taken on record. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to continue with the present proceedings as the complainants have been granted relief by the respondent sought by them in the present complaint. The same is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5.1 In Contempt Petition No. 03/2002 in R.T.P.E. No. 72 of 2001, the MRTP Commission issued notice to the respondent making it returnable on 09.04.2003, wherein an application was moved to withdraw the contempt application, which was filed by the complainant against the order dated 26.09.2001 passed by MRTP Commission, New Delhi in R.T.P.E. No. 72 of 2001. The prayer was made, to allow the complainant to withdraw the contempt petition, wherein the memo of settlement was produced on record of the MRTP Commission, which was in following terms: MEMO OF SETTLEMENT “FIRST PARTY: M/s. Navkar Chemist, Patan, North Gujarat through its Proprietor Mr. Pankaj Kumar Velani. SECOND PARTY: Patan Chemist Association, Gujarat. The prayer was made, to allow the complainant to withdraw the contempt petition, wherein the memo of settlement was produced on record of the MRTP Commission, which was in following terms: MEMO OF SETTLEMENT “FIRST PARTY: M/s. Navkar Chemist, Patan, North Gujarat through its Proprietor Mr. Pankaj Kumar Velani. SECOND PARTY: Patan Chemist Association, Gujarat. The First Party and the Second party have sorted out the differences to the mutual satisfaction of both the sides. With a view to avoid acrimony and creating spirit of goodwill and cooperation both the parties have agreed as under: 1. The First Party will withdraw the various notices and proceedings initiated against the Association and others. The First Party further agrees to withdraw all pending cases and proceedings in the M.R.T.P. Commission. 2. The Second Party on behalf of all respondents Associations and other agrees not to initiate any proceedings civil or criminal in any Court against the First Party. Both the parties having sorted out their differences to the mutual satisfaction and agrees that they will work together for the mutual benefit.” 6. Terms of settlement dated 10.02.2004 was in the contempt proceeding no. 3 of 2002. Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the Civil Appeal No. 630 of 2002 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.03.2004. In spite of the settlement, the complainant Mr. Pankaj Kumar Velani proceeded with the private complaint, though C-Summary report dated 24.03.2011 was on the record of Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner nos.1 to 3 were arrested on 22.03.2021. 7. Senior Advocate Mr. S.I. Nanavati along with Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Shukla submitted that the Magistrate had not accepted the C-Summary report of the police. Since found the criminal act of petitioners to be taken cognizance, hence, charge-sheet came to be filed by the police. Senior advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that the allegation is of creating forged document in the office of the petitioner at Patan, thus, no offence is alleged to have been committed in the proceeding of MRTP Commission. Senior advocate stated that there is no forgery in the documents after filed before the Commission hence power under section 195 Cr.P.C. would not be attracted, and that this Court is called upon to decide whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence based on private complaint for the offence alleged which includes sections 193 and 471 of IPC. Senior advocate stated that there is no forgery in the documents after filed before the Commission hence power under section 195 Cr.P.C. would not be attracted, and that this Court is called upon to decide whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence based on private complaint for the offence alleged which includes sections 193 and 471 of IPC. 7.1 In view of the submissions raised, Senior Advocate Mr. S.I. Nanavati along with Advocate Mr. Vaibhav B.Shukla, submitted that the issue now requires a decision, whether the judgment of Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. 2005 (2) G.L.H. 413 , or the judgment of M/s. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni, AIR 2020 SC 4247 , would prevail over the facts of the matter. 7.2 In Iqbal Singh Marwah’s case the dispute was with respect to forgery of the will. Upon production of the will before the District Court, the respondent moved an application under section 340 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to file a criminal complaint. Since no decision was taken upon the application, a criminal complaint was filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for prosecuting on the issue of forgery of will pending before the District Court. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that bar would operate for taking cognizance of the offence under section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii). 7.3 A revision was filed by the respondents before the Sessions Court, which allowed the petition. The applicant challenged the order of the Sessions Court before the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissing the appeal it was held that as the will has been produced in the Court subsequently the bar created under section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. 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 complaint filed by the respondents. 7.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matter has noted that bar 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 as evidence in proceeding of the Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. 7.5 Senior advocate Mr. 7.5 Senior advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) has not been overruled in M/s. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra), which according to Mr. Nanavati could be known from paragraphs 54 and 60 of the judgment, which reads as under: “54. Shri Mishra then argued that Surjit Singh (supra) had been relied upon by the High Court, which judgment was overruled in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra). Though this is correct, the reasoning that Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, to which the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. do not apply, is a finding made by the High Court in the impugned judgment which is unexceptional. For this reason also, incorrect reliance based on Surjit Singh (supra) would not avail the Appellants in the present case. 60. Writ petitions that were filed against this order have been dismissed by the impugned judgment. It seems to us that the baby and the bath-water have both been thrown out together. While it is correct to say that the order of conversion and issuing of process thereafter on a private complaint may not be correct, yet the two complaints as originally filed can still be pursued. Once the Magistrate’s order had been set aside, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have relegated the parties to the position before the original complaints had been converted into private complaints. Since this has not been done, we find that Shri Mishra is right in stating that even though allegedly serious offences have been made out under Section 191 and 192 of the IPC, yet the complaints themselves have now been quashed. We, therefore, reinstate the two complaints in their original form so that they may be proceeded with further, following the drill of Section 195 and 340 of the Cr.P.C.” 7.6 In case of in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), it has been observed in paragraphs 25 and 26 as under: “25. 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. 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) Cr.P.C. 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. 26. 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(1)(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) Cr.P.C. 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 is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.” 7.7 The case of Scahida Nand Singh Vs. State of Bihar, JT 1998 (1) SC 370, was opined to have been correctly decided and the view taken therein was upheld in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), observing that Section 195(1)(b) (ii) Cr.P.C. 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. 7.8 In Sachida Nand Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. unlike the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), which is covered by the preceding clause of the section. 7.8 In Sachida Nand Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. unlike the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), which is covered by the preceding clause of the section. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted that the category of offences which fall under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. refer to the offence of giving false evidence and offences against public justice which is distinctly different from those offences under section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. where a dispute could arise whether the offence of forging a document was committed outside the court or when it was in the custody of the court, hence, held that the decision in Sachida Nand Singh (supra) has no application to the facts of the case of M/s. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra). 7.9 Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavati has impressed upon the expression ‘custodia legis’, and submitted that the reply dated 08.03.1999, shown as reply dated 15.03.1999, was being forged prior to producing the same before the M.R.T.P. Commission, New Delhi. According to learned senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati in view of the facts, the private complaint would be maintainable. 8. The judgment of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) was distinguished in M/s. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Apex Court in M/s. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra) after having considered the facts of the case, has noted in paragraph 19, 22, 23 and 33, as under: “19. At this stage, it is important to understand the difference between the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the provisions of Section 191 to 193 of the IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC applies. What is important is that once these sections of the IPC are attracted, the offence should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. Thus, what is clear is that the offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court. 22. Thus, what is clear is that the offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court. 22. Contrasted with Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC 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 Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra). 33. The aforesaid judgments clearly lay down that when Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC is attracted, the ratio of Iqubal Singh Marwah (supra), which approved Sachidanand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 493 , is not attracted, and that therefore, if false evidence is created outside the Court premises attracting Sections 191/192 of the IPC, the aforesaid ratio would not apply so as to validate a private complaint filed for offences made out under these sections.” 9. The complaint against which the petitioners have taken objection is in connection with the provision of section 471 of IPC, which is in relation to using as genuine a forged document, including the offence under section 193 of IPC, which is in connection with the punishment for false evidence. Sections 193 and 471 of IPC are reproduced herein-under: 193. Punishment for false evidence: Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Punishment for false evidence: Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1 - A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding. Explanation 2 - An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence. Explanation 3 - An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in any enquiry before an officer deputed by a Court of Justice to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding. A has given false evidence.” “471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record] - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].” 10. The present petitioners state that in the reply, which was produced before the MRTP Commission in RTPE Case No. 25/2004, they had specified that the contents of paragraph no. 18.2 are incorrect, and that the complainant had replaced the true content of the letter written by the then President of ‘Patan Chemists’ Association’ by replacing the relevant pages of the letter. 18.2 are incorrect, and that the complainant had replaced the true content of the letter written by the then President of ‘Patan Chemists’ Association’ by replacing the relevant pages of the letter. The present petitioners, thus, stated that the true translated copy of the letter written by the then secretary of ‘Patan Chemists’ Association’ was being filed as Annexure R-3. 10.1 However, the complainant states that though the reply was filed, document Annexure R-3 was not produced on record. The complainant, therefore, made a complaint before the MRTP Commission in regard to Annexure R-3 during the course of the proceedings. On 20.11.2006, the MRTP Commission ordered the present petitioners to produce Annexure R-3 along with Gujarati copy further directing that the copy of the same to be provided to the complainant. 10.2 According to the complainant, after the order of MRTP Commission, the accused produced translated copy through the clerk of the Advocate in the Commission on 08.02.2006, which was the English translation of Annexure-R-3. The complainant states that a copy was given to his Advocate and on receiving the said copy prima facie it was found that the accused, present petitioners, have forged the English translated copy. It is also alleged that in spite of the order of MRTP Commission, the copy in Gujarati language was not produced; and further has given the detail in the complaint that as per the accused themselves, the document produced by the complainant before the commission was in three pages, and that the complainant has changed two pages, while the accused admits of the third page, but according to the complainant, the English translation produced by the accused, does not bear the contents of third page, and, thus according to the complainant, the accused have created a forged document. 10.3 The further contents of the complaint are that, on 26.04.2006, he had informed the MRTP Commission that he had not received the Gujarati translated copy, and in total disregard to the order of the MRTP Commission, the accused had not produced the Gujarati language copy nor had given the same to the complainant, rather the Advocate before the MRTP Commission had made a false representation and, therefore an order was passed on 26.04.2006. 10.4 The order dated 26.04.2006, is reproduced herein-under: “Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 10.4 The order dated 26.04.2006, is reproduced herein-under: “Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 makes a statement that in compliance of Commission’s order dated 20.1.2006, it has supplied the annexure mentioned therein along with photo copy of the original in Gujarati. However, the same is not on record of the Commission. Learned counsel for the respondents is not able to state the date on which the same was filed in the commission. Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to make available two sets of the documents filed by him to the Commission to complete the Commission’s file within two weeks. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he, however, has received the set of documents as mentioned above. However, he challenges the veracity of Annexure R-3 of the documents filed and alleges that action in the nature of forgery has been committed by the respondent. He would be filing an appropriate application with the Commission with a copy to the learned counsel for the respondent within two weeks. Learned counsel for the complainants would also be filing within the same time framed reply to the compliance affidavit filed by respondents Nos. 1, 9 and 10. The respondent No. 7 is given last and final opportunity for filing of the reply, if not already filed two weeks ahead of the next date of listing failing which it will be presumed that respondent No. 7 is not interested in filing its reply. If the reply is filed by respondent No. 7 and copy is received by the applicant, he would be at liberty to file its rejoinder thereon within two weeks with copies thereof to the respondents. If no reply is received from respondent No. 7, the applicant would be at liberty to file a rejoinder in respect of other replies presuming that respondent No. 7 is not furnishing its reply. List on 23.8.2006 for further consideration.” 10.5 As per the order, it appears that the petitioners were making representation regarding the compliance of the Commission’s order dated 20.01.2006. The order dated 20.01.2006 reads as under: “The learned counsel for R-7 seeks time for filing the affidavit of compliance and reply to the Notice of Enquiry within 2 weeks which is allowed and he is directed to do so with copy to the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the other respondents. The order dated 20.01.2006 reads as under: “The learned counsel for R-7 seeks time for filing the affidavit of compliance and reply to the Notice of Enquiry within 2 weeks which is allowed and he is directed to do so with copy to the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the other respondents. The affidavit of compliance has already been filed by all other respondents. The replies to the Notice of Enquiry have been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 9 & 10 and Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5. Reply to the Notice of Enquiry are yet to be filed by Respondent Nos.2, 6 & 8 but the learned counsel representing them submits that he would be filing the reply during the course of the day. The learned counsel for the applicant states though with regard to the replies filed on behalf of the R-1, 3, 4 & 5 they have not filed the annexure mentioned in the reply with photocopy in Gujrati. The learned counsel for the respondent undertakes to supply those annexures to the learned counsel for the complainant within 2 weeks. The counsel for the respondents representing 1, 3, 4 & 5 also directed to file those annexures along with photocopy in Gujrati within 2 weeks in the Commission. List for framing of issues on 26th April 2006.” 10.6 The complainant further states that the accused on the order being passed by the MRTP Commission created forged document and had produced in the judicial proceedings. It is alleged that during the period of August, 2006 created a forged Gujarati copy and produced in MRTP Commission and a copy was given to him. It is stated that the Gujarati copy was produced with an ill intention to cause financial loss to the complainant. The document dated 08.03.1999 was the original document, which was given by the accused, and though knowing the said fact had committed an offence of forgery by creating false and forged documents, which had been used as true before the MRTP Commission. 10.7 The complainant has also stated that he had given the original document dated 08.03.1999 and the photo copy of the document dated 15.03.1999 for comparison for the forensic examiner, Mr. Anilkumar Mathur, at Mumbai, and as per the forensic examiner’s report the accused had created a forged document. 10.7 The complainant has also stated that he had given the original document dated 08.03.1999 and the photo copy of the document dated 15.03.1999 for comparison for the forensic examiner, Mr. Anilkumar Mathur, at Mumbai, and as per the forensic examiner’s report the accused had created a forged document. The complainant thus alleges that the doucment produced in the proceeding had been used as true and thereby accused have committed offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complainant has stated that the accused have committed offence under section 193 of IPC and therefore a separate application had been given against the accused before the MRTP Commission. 10.8 The complainant’s allegation is that he had received a reply dated 08.03.1999 from the accused nos.3 and 4, and in spite of knowing the fact, the accused have forged the document, and as per his information the document dated 15.03.1999 was forged at Patan, and the photo copy of the same was produced before the MRTP Commission; while the forged document, original/master copy, is in the possession of the accused, for which he had made a prayer to seize, with an intention that the original of the forged document dated 15.03.1999 does not get change or lost or destroyed. 10.9 The order dated 20.01.2006 notes that, the learned counsel for the present petitioners stated with regard to the replies filed on behalf of the R-1, 3, 4 & 5 that they have not filed the annexures mentioned in the reply with photocopy in Gujarati; the counsel undertook to supply those annexures to the learned counsel for the complainant within two weeks. The counsel representing respondent nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 was directed to file those annexures along with photo copy in Gujarati within two weeks before the Commission. 10.10 While the order dated 26.04.2006 notes that, in compliance of the order dated 20.01.2006, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 stated that he had supplied Annexures mentioned therein along with photo copy of the original in Gujarati. The Commission noted that the same was not on record of the Commission, and it notes that the counsel for the respondents was not able to state the date on which the same was filed in Commission. The Commission noted that the same was not on record of the Commission, and it notes that the counsel for the respondents was not able to state the date on which the same was filed in Commission. The counsel was, thus, directed to make available two sets of document filed by him to the Commission to complete the Commission’s file within two weeks. The order further notes that the learned counsel for the applicants states that he had received the sets of the documents as mentioned; however, he challenges the veracity of Annexure R-3 of the documents filed, and alleges that action in the nature of forgery has been committed by the respondents. 10.11 On perusal of both the referred orders, it appears that the Annexure, as mentioned in reply, was not actually produced on record of the Commission. The order does not states that learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 had made any statement that in compliance of the order dated 20.01.2006, he has given any copy to the learned counsel of the applicants. The challenge was given to such a document, which was not actually on record of the Commission. 10.12 The Commission’s order notes that the complainant was challenging veracity of Annexure- R-3 of the document filed, to allege that it is a forgery. 11. The complaint impugned was given before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Patan on 27.02.2007 registered as Inquiry No. 4/2007. The complaint was with regard to the proceeding as RTP Case No. 25 of 2004, which was still pending at the time of complaint before MRTP Commission, New Delhi. The complainant produced a reply dated 08.03.1999 stating it to be given by accused nos.3 and 4. Before the Commission, the accused in their reply to the complaint alleged that the complainant has replaced true contents of the letter written by replacing the relevant pages of the letter, and further pleaded that the true translated copy of actual letter written by the then President/Secretary ‘Patan Chemist Association’ was filed marked as Annexure R-3. 11.1 Actually no such Annexure R-3 was on record which transpires from the order dated 20.01.2006 and 26.04.2006 of the Commission. According to the complainant on 08.02.2006, English translation copy of Annexure R.3 was given to the complainant by the clerk of the Advocate while no Gujarati copy was handed over. 11.1 Actually no such Annexure R-3 was on record which transpires from the order dated 20.01.2006 and 26.04.2006 of the Commission. According to the complainant on 08.02.2006, English translation copy of Annexure R.3 was given to the complainant by the clerk of the Advocate while no Gujarati copy was handed over. The order of the Commission on 26.04.2006 still notes that the annexures mentioned in the order dated 20.01.2006 along with photo copy of the original in Gujarati is not on record of the Commission, and the order further notes that the learned counsel for the respondent is unable to state the date on which the same was filed in the Commission. 11.2 So the facts get clear that till 26.04.2006, no such alleged forged documents were produced before the MRTP Commission, nor the photo copy of the original in Gujarati nor the English translation of alleged Annexure R.3. So nothing was on record as Annexure R.3. So what was given for handwriting expert opinion was the document dated 08.03.1999 which was produced by the complainant himself before the MRTP Commission and a photo copy of document which was alleged to be given by the clerk of the Advocate of the accused to the complainant, to which the complainant states to be dated 15.03.1999. This document alleged to be of 15.03.1999 was never produced on the record of the MRTP Commission. 11.3 The petitioners had taken objection to the document dated 08.03.1999 in following terms before the Commission: “12.9 Para 12.9 is denied. What is alleged to be the reply dt.8.3.1999 by the President and Secretary of Patan Chemists Association, is not a genuine document. No such reply as annexed as Annexure V at Page 32-34 is available on the records of the Association. A copy of the reply dated 8.3.1999 available in the office of the Association is different from what has been annexed by the complainant. On a comparison of the two it has been found that the complainant has deliberately replaced the first two pages of the reply i.e. Page 32 and 33 and thereby has fabricated a false document and produced the same before this Hon’ble Commission as a genuine document. At the appropriate time, the answering respondent shall produce the office copy to establish the said criminal offence committed by the complainant and seek appropriate action against the complainant. At the appropriate time, the answering respondent shall produce the office copy to establish the said criminal offence committed by the complainant and seek appropriate action against the complainant. The Association did not have at any time round seal as appears to have been affixed to this letters. The photocopy available in the office files show that the original had been initialed by the two individuals concerned in each page whereas the copy filed along with the present complaint, does not have such initials and the first two pages have been deliberately replaced to mislead this Hon’ble Commission. The answering respondent shall produce the office copy at the appropriate time and seek criminal prosecution of the complainant in this regard. Detailed submissions would be made at the hearing of the case in this regard. A perusal of the office copy which is available in the Association files would show that there was no such statement therein as alleged by the complainant of alleged non co- operation/boycott of the complainant. Without prejudice to the above it is stated that the reply in question appears to have been issued by the two persons concerned without reference to the Association as it is not in the letter head of the Association and further they seem to have issued the said letter at a time when they were having certain disputes with Shri Vinubhai Patel. The Assumption on their part that Shri Vinubhai Patel was Chairman of same action committee is factually incorrect as no action committee is in existence since 1991.” 11.4 The complaint before the Magistrate notes that Annexure R-3 document was not produced before the Commission and, therefore, an order dated 20.11.2006 was passed by the MRTP Commission to produce Annexure R-3 along with Gujarati translation, and a copy to be given to the complainant. The complaint further notes that clerk of the Advocate had produced the English translated copy of Annexure R-3 on 08.02.2006, and he had received English translated copy, and according to him the English translated document is a forged document. According to the complainant the original Gujarati copy was not earlier produced before the MRTP Commission. So the allegation was with regard to the translated version, to specify that the document, which he had produced, was of three pages. According to the complainant the original Gujarati copy was not earlier produced before the MRTP Commission. So the allegation was with regard to the translated version, to specify that the document, which he had produced, was of three pages. The present petitioners alleged that two of the pages have been changed by the complainant, while they accepted the third page. The English translation produced does not note the contents of the third page, and, thus according to the complainant, the accused have forged the document. 11.5 The order dated 26.04.2006 of the MRTP Commission finds that the Annexures mentioned in the reply along with the photo copy of the original in Gujarati were not there on record of the Commission. The learned counsel for the respondents could not clarify the date on which the same was filed in the Commission. The order dated 26.04.2006 notes that such a document was not produced in the proceedings before the MRTP Commission. While the complainant has orally challenged the veracity of Annexure R-3 of the document before the MRTP Commission. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Shah submitted that even prior to the orders of the MRTP Commission, on 05.07.2002, the present petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) in Civil Appeal No. 630 of 2002, through secretary, Patan Chemists’ Association, Amit Jayanti Lal Shah, had informed the Hon’ble Apex Court that Annexure-A/7, at page 40-44 of the SLP paper book produced as genuine were not actually genuine, and the Annexure-A/7, the reply dated 08.03.1999 signed by Shri Mukeshbhai Patel, Secretary and Shri Nikhilbhai Raval, President, does not tally with the office copy available in the office of the Association; the document consists of three pages. That the comparison of the office copy available with the Association with Annexure A/7 shows that first two pages of the said document has been replaced by the complainant-petitioner before the Supreme Court, and thereby he had created a forged document, and had produced the same in the proceeding before the Hon’ble Court, and therefore had urged before the Apex Court that it was a criminal offence for which he was liable to be punished. 12.1 Advocate Mr. 12.1 Advocate Mr. Shah stated that in the reply, it has been clarified that Annexure A/7, which was produced before the Hon’ble Apex Court, purporting to be the reply sent by Shri Nikhilbhai Raval and Shri Mukesh Patel and according to the two individuals, it has not been sent by them and it is completely forged document. Advocate Mr. Shah stated that it was humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Apex Court to inquire into the same and initiate appropriate proceeding against the petitioner for the offence committed by him in that regard. Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that after that reply of the present petitioners before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 630 of 2002, the complainant/petitioner withdrew his petition. Thus, the cognizance could not be taken by the Supreme Court of the forgery of the complainant. 12.2 Advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that an application was filed in Civil Appeal No. 630 of 2002 as I.A. No. 2/2002 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant/complainant Shri Pankajkumar Bachubhai Velani by referring the matter to either the local police or to the Central Bureau of Investigation to examine the genuineness of the document, under the criminal law on 16.04.2002. 12.3 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that on 10.05.2002, the complainant as a petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court withdrew the petition, which came to be disposed of as withdrawn. Mr. Shah stated that it was not for the very first time before the MRTP Commission that they had alleged of the forgery by the complainant himself. It was urged very categorically before Supreme Court that Annexure A/7 was not a genuine document and does not tally with the office copy in the office of the Association. 13. The complainant has alleged of giving false English translated copy and false and fabricated Gujarati document in the proceeding before the MRTP Commission, which the complainant states that it was intentionally given by the present petitioners, to be used as genuine against him in the proceeding. 13.1 Section 193 of IPC attract the ingredients of intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding and fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. 13.1 Section 193 of IPC attract the ingredients of intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding and fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. Section 471 of IPC attracts the ingredients of fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine the documents and knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document. 13.2 The complainant had alleged that the documents were forged at Patan, and used at the proceeding at New Delhi before the MRTP Commission. The forgery alleged is of its commission outside the Court. So the forgery is not when the documents were in the custodia legis of the MRTP Commission. 13.3 Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. refers to the offence of section 193 IPC when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court. The relevant words and expression would be ‘such offence is alleged to have been committed’ ‘in’ or ‘in relation to’ any proceeding in any Court. The relevant provision of section 195 is reproduced herein-under: “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). (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence. (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or 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. (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. (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. (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 by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.” 13.4 Here, in the present matter, both the document, the English translated version and Gujarati copy were alleged to be fabricated. Those were stated to be fabricated after the order of the MRTP Commission to be used in the proceeding. According to the complainant intentionally false evidence was given. Such intentional giving or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in the judicial proceeding is offence under section 193 IPC. 13.5 M/s. Bhandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) clarifies that where the facts mentioned in the complaint, attracts provision of sections 191 to 193 of the IPC alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. applies. Once these sections are attracted which here is offence of giving and fabricating false evidence committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, no cognizance shall be taken by the Court. Offence punishable under these sections which bars cognizance does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court, but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court. Section 193 IPC gets attracted to intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of judicial proceeding and fabricating false evidence for the purpose of using in any stage of a judicial proceeding. So when such fabrication of false evidence is done out of Court but committed for in relation to any Court proceeding then no Court can take cognizance of such offence unless a complaint in writing has been given by that Court or such offence of the Court as that court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. 13.6 Here, in the present matter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan could not take cognizance of the offence of section 193 IPC without a written complaint by the MRTP Commission or other officer authorizes on behalf. 13.7 In M/s. Bhandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble apex Court has clarified the difference between section 195(1)(b)(i) and section 195(1)(b)(ii). The difference is about employing the expression ‘or in relation to’ in section 195(1)(b)(i), which is absent in section 195(1)(b)(ii). For the bar to be applicable under section 195(1)(b)(ii) the difference is in connection to the document in custodia legis of the Court i.e. the offence of sections 463, 471, 475 or 476 of IPC must have been committed in respect of the document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, i.e. while the doucment was in the actual custody of Court. Thus, when the offence get committed in the Court, for the offence of section 463, 471, 475 or 476 of IPC, no cognizance can be taken by the Court unless a complaint is filed by the Court to which the offence was committed. But if such offence is are committed outside the Court, then the bar would not apply and then a private complaint by the aggrieved is maintainable. 13.8 So far the offence under section 193 IPC as alleged, the MRTP Commission was only the authority to undertake the procedure under section 340 Cr.P.C. for the case as of section 193 IPC which is mentioned in section 195(1)(b) (i) Cr.P.C. 13.9 Section 340 Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein-below: “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 interest 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 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. (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. (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.” 13.10 M/s. Bhandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) lays down that when section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. is attracted then ratio in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) and Sachida Nand Singh (supra) is not attracted. Thus, it is held that learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence alleged under section 193 of IPC. 14. The charge has been framed under sections 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 114, 34, 120B, 175 and 193 of IPC. Since, no cognizance can be taken by the Court for the offence under section 193 IPC, as for the reasons given hereinabove, for rest of sections too, the Court would not be in a position to take cognizance, since all the sections of IPC are connected with the offence alleged under section 193 IPC of giving and fabricating false evidence. 14.1 Section 464 is for making of false document. Section 465 is for punishment for forgery and sections 467 is with regard to forgery of document. Section 468 is for forgery for the purpose of cheating and section 471, as referred hereinabove, is for using the forged document as genuine. 14.1 Section 464 is for making of false document. Section 465 is for punishment for forgery and sections 467 is with regard to forgery of document. Section 468 is for forgery for the purpose of cheating and section 471, as referred hereinabove, is for using the forged document as genuine. Section 420 is for cheating and dishonestly using the delivery of property. Section 406 is for punishment in regard to criminal breach of trust and section 120B is for criminal conspiracy. Section 175 provides for omission to produce or deliver the documents, which they are legally bound to do so. Section 114 deals with abettor when offence is committed and section 34 is for acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. 14.2 Since all the referred sections are inter-connected with section 193 IPC, thus, no cognizance can be taken by the Court, the proceedings under rest of the sections also would not be maintainable, in view of the bar under section 195(1)(b)(iii) of the Cr.P.C. 15. In the result, the present Revision Application is allowed. The order dated 27.08.2021 passed below Exhibit-16 in Criminal Case No. 3624 of 2021 is quashed and set aside, by allowing Exhibit-17.