Section 340 application maintainable before the first court where a forged document and false pleading are filed.

Section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars a second court from taking cognizance of specified offences relating to proceedings or documents pending before another court, except on a complaint by the first court or a subordinate court. That restriction does not extend to the very court before which the forged document and false pleadings are filed. The Delhi High Court notes that the distinction between the first court and the second court is material, and that earlier Supreme Court authorities concerned the second court's power rather than the first court's jurisdiction under Section 340. The court therefore treats an application under Section 340 as maintainable before the court where the alleged forgery was presented.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first court was barred from entertaining an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when pleadings were filed on the basis of a forged and fabricated document allegedly known to be false.

Analysis: Section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 create a bar on a second court taking cognizance of specified offences in relation to proceedings or documents pending before another court, except on a complaint by that first court or a court to which it is subordinate. That bar does not curtail the jurisdiction of the very court before which the forged document has been filed and on whose proceedings the Section 340 application is presented. The distinction between the first court and the second court is material. The earlier Supreme Court authorities concerned the second court's power and the effect of forgery committed before or after a document entered the judicial record; they did not hold that the first court lacks jurisdiction to act where false pleadings and a forged document are presented before it.

Conclusion: The application under Section 340 was maintainable before the first court and the refusal to entertain it on a supposed jurisdictional bar was erroneous.

Ratio Decidendi: The bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 restricts cognizance by a second court and does not prevent the court before which the forged document and false pleading are filed from entertaining an application under Section 340.

---