NARVDESHWAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARPRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been moved with the prayer to quash the complaint and the summoning order in Case No. 3003 of 80 Vubhuti Lal v. Narvdeshwar and others pending in the court of Sri P.N. Roy. Special Judicial Magistrate, Garakhpur.

(2.) Sri Vibhuti Lal apposite party No. 2 is Pradhan if village Senduria. P.S. Mahrajganj, District Garakhpur. The petitioners Narvdeshwar Tiwari and Virendra Das are also residents of the same village. Subrati a tenure holder of the same village wanted to sell his holding. He could not sell the holding except with the permission in writing of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as provided under Section 5 (2) (ii) of the D.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. He there fare moved an application before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for permission to transfer his holding by way of sale He, it so appears was required to produce a Caste Certificate far obtaining the permission. He produced a Caste Certificate purporting to have been issued by Sri Vibhuti Lal Srivastava, Pradhan of the village and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) therefore granted the permission and Subrati executed a sale deed. Vibhuti Lal Srivastava opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate. Garakhpur against petitioners and two others to wit Subrati and Santoo Dube under Sections 419/ 420/ 468/ 467/ 471, I.P.C. with the allegation that the accused named in the compliant have after entering into a cans piracy forged the Caste Certificate and obtained the sale deed. He further alleged in the complaint that the seal of Gram Pradhan as well as his signatures, bath have been forged and an the basis of the forged document filed by the accused, permission was obtained by misguiding the court. It so appears that after examining one witness the learned Magistrate summoned the accused and hence this petition.

(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 195, Cr. P.C. the court below could not take cognizance on a complaint filed by a private person Sri Vibhuti Lal Srivastava. The key question which arises for consideration is whether the court below cannot take cognizance of the offences complained of by a private person Sri Vibhuti Lal in view of the provisions of Section 195, Cr. P.C. The relevant portion of Section 195(1) (b) (ii) may be extracted thus:T1s 195 (1) -No court shall take cognizance: (b) (ii) of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 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 abetment to commit or 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 to which that court is subordinate.