Section 195 bar to prosecution applies only to parties to the proceeding and not later entrants.

Section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code bars cognizance only for offences committed by a person already a party, as such, to a proceeding, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in that proceeding. Read with Section 476, the provision was construed narrowly, so it did not extend to a person who became a party long after the alleged forgery. A civil court also has no inherent jurisdiction to file a criminal complaint outside the statutory scheme. On these facts, no prior court complaint was required before prosecution for abetment of forgery could proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code applied so as to make a complaint by the Court necessary before prosecution for abetment of forgery could be launched in respect of the documents in question.

Analysis: Section 195 creates a bar to cognizance in specified cases and must be construed consistently with Section 476. Clause (c) was held to apply only where the offence is committed by a party, as such, to a proceeding in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in that proceeding. The Court rejected a wider reading that would cover a person who became a party long after the alleged forgery, and also held that a civil Court has no inherent jurisdiction to file a criminal complaint outside the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Section 195(1)(c) was held inapplicable on the facts, and no complaint by the Court was necessary before prosecution could proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 195(1)(c) applies only to an offence committed by a person who is already a party, as such, to the proceeding, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence therein, and the provision must be read consistently with the statutory complaint procedure.

---