B.P. Beri, C.J.
1. This is an application by way of revision under Section 435 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated January 22, 1971, whereby he upheld the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Niwalgarh, dated September 30, 1969, by which the petitioner's complaint was dismissed in view of Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this petition, are these. Chimnalal petitioner had filed a complaint against accused Nathmal and Laduram on December 7, 1967, in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh, on the allegations that a place of land measuring 216 feet East-West and 216 feet North South, measuring 46, 656 sq. it. situate near Railway station, Dandlod Mukandgarh, belonged to the joint family of M/S Jawharmal Nandlal. It was purchased through a 'patta' dated Asad sudi 11 samvat 1999 and, on October 12, 1960, it was given on lease for a period of ten years to firm Bibulal Modi for installing a Petrol Pumo and presently such a pump is in existence thereon. Nathmal accused, in order to get this land, set up his claim of ownership, and for that purpose, forged a 'patta' of Thikana Dundlod of Miti Baisakh Sudi 10 samvat 2010, in the name of his servant Laduram, the second opposite party before me, and obtained a sale deed from him in regard to the land aforesaid and presented it for registration before the Registrar of Deeds on August 1, 1966, and succeeded in getting it registered. Later on, however, the registration was cancelled On September 23, 1966, a civil suit (No. 260 of 1966) was instituted by Chimanalal for recovery of rent in regard to the land above mentioned to which Nathmal was a party. A complamt was presented, as already stated, on December 7, 1967 alleging that the accused persons had commited an offence under Section 467, Indian Penal Code. The Sub Divisional Magistrate sent it for investigation under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the Police Station, Niwalgarh After necessary investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the allegations made in his complaint were correct. The Station House Officer of the Police Station, Nawalgarh, moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, that a prima facie case had been made out. Eventually, a challan was presented against both the accused persons Nathmal and Laduram by the police on June 6, 1968, under Section 420, 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. The accused, however, moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate raising the objection that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in view of the provisions contained in Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate relying on a number of rulings cited before him, accepted the contention of the accused and while dismissing the complaint quashed the proceedings against the accused. Dis-satisfied from this order, the complainant moved the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, but without success. He has now come before me in revision.
3. Mr. P.N. Datta argues that the complaint and the police challan relate to the forgery of two documents namely, a 'patta' in favour of Laduram and a sale deed executed by Laduram in favour of Nathmal. The sale deed was presented for registration on August 1, 1966. It is reasonable to presume that the foundational of document 'patta' must have existed before the deed of sale was presented for registration. As both the documents were in existence before the civil suit No. 260 of 1966 was instituted by Chimnalal for recevery of rent to which Nathmal was a party, the prohibition contained in Section 186(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not operative on the authority of two devisors of the Supreme Court reported in Patel Lalji Bhai Soma Bhal v. The State of Gujarat : 1971CriLJ1437 and Raghu Nath and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. : AIR1973SC1100 .
4. The provisions of law, which I am called upon to interpret, is Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it reads:
195, Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servant:
(1) No Court shall take cognizance--
(c) of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given is evidence in such proceeding except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Courts to which such Court is subordinate.
5. This provision had been the subject matter of many decisions, quite number of which have been ceiled by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate are there was a divergence of opinion in regard to its interpretation. It would be furtile to trace the divergence of judicial opinion in view of the authoritative interpretation given by the Supreme Court in the two cases cited by Mr. Datt. In Patel Lalji Bhai Soma Bhai v. The State of Gujarat : 1971CriLJ1437 , the Hon'ble Judges, after examining the previsions of Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the context of Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, same to the conclusion that the under-lying purpose of enacting Section 195(1)(b) and (c) and Section 467 was to control the natural impulse of vindictiveness on the part of the private complainants to harass their opponents and also to avoid the possible confusion, which a conflict of decisions might entail. Dua J. speaking for the Bench, observed:
The offices about which the court alone, to the exclusion of the aggrieved private parties, is clothed with the right to complain may, therefore, be appropriately considered to be only those offences committed by a party to a proceeding in that court, the commission of which has a reasonably close nexus with the proceedings in that Court so that it can, without embarking upon a completely independent and fresh inquiry, satisfactorily consider by reference principally to its records the expediency of prosecuting the delinquent party. It, therefore, appears to us to be more appropriate to adopt the strict construction of confining the prohibition contained in Section 195(1)(c) only to those cases in which the offences specified therein were committed by a party to the proceeding in the character as such party....
In para No. 11 it is further observed:
In this case the offence under Section 471, I.P.C. is clearly covered by the prohibition contained in Section 195(1)(c) but the offence Under Section 467, I.P.C. can in our view be tried in the absence of a complaint by the Court unless it is shown by the evidence that the documents in question were forged by a party to the earlier proceeding in his character as such party, in other words, after the suit had been instituted.
6. It is true that Nathmal is a party in the civil suit No. 260 of 1966, although Laduram is not. It cannot be also reasonably disputed that the documents came into existence prior to September 23, 1966, when the suit was instituted and one of the documents was presented for registration on August 1,1966 and the other document was a foundational document. Can it be said, in these circumstances, that the offences under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code, have been committed by Nathmal in respect of documents produced or given in evidence in such civil suit No. 260 of 1966? The answer to this question is plainly in the negative because in the language of the Supreme Court the documents came earlier in existence than the civil suit in which they have been produced. Section 467, Indian Penal Code, is an offence relating of a forgery valuable security. Prima facie, it appears that the 'pattas' and sale deeds fall within the category of valuable securities Section 468, Indian Penal Code is an offence relating to forgery for the purposes of cheating. I express no opinion whether Section 420, Indian Penal Code, will have any meaning in the circumstances. That certainly is not the section prosecution under which requires any prior sanction, The case before me is clearly covered by the authorities of the Supreme Court cited above and Section 195(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure is no prohibition for the enquiry or trial of the criminal complaint and the challan.
7. In the result, the revision application is accepted and the orders of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh, dated September 20 1969 and of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated January 22,1971, are hereby quashed. The case will now go before the appropriate court for further action.
8. Mr. Tibrewal conceded before me that the matter is covered by the two decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, but he still thinks that the matter may require reconsideration by the Supreme Court and, therefore, prays for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, The matter, in my opinion stands concluded by the two authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above and that being so, leave to appeal is refused.