Section 195 bar on private complaints for false evidence in court proceedings applies, and forgery cannot be used to evade it.

Where allegations in a complaint, read as a whole, concern false statements, false evidence or fabrication in relation to pending court proceedings, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 creates a mandatory bar on private cognizance and requires the court to follow Section 340. The Court also held that the disputed debit notes were not shown to be false documents within Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, so the allegations could not be recast as a forgery case to bypass the statutory bar. The original complaints were restored to proceed only through the special procedure under Sections 195 and 340.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaints alleging offences under Sections 191 to 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 attracted the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and required the procedure under Section 340 of that Code. (ii) Whether the alleged debit notes and related documents made out forgery offences under Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so as to permit a private complaint. (iii) Whether the complaints could be wholly quashed after the Magistrate's order converting them into private complaints was set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the complaints alleging offences under Sections 191 to 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 attracted the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and required the procedure under Section 340 of that Code.

Analysis: Section 195(1)(b)(i) operates where offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in court. The complaints, read as a whole, alleged false statements, false evidence and fabrication of false evidence in relation to pending civil proceedings, which placed them within that clause. The statutory scheme makes the bar mandatory, and Section 340 provides the exclusive procedural route for the court concerned to decide whether a complaint is expedient in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The complaints were governed by Section 195(1)(b)(i) and had to proceed, if at all, through Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged debit notes and related documents made out forgery offences under Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so as to permit a private complaint.

Analysis: Forgery under Section 463 depends upon making a false document within Section 464. The Court held that the debit notes were not shown to be documents made by impersonation, by false authority, or by any other mode satisfying the statutory definition of a false document. The allegations essentially concerned false evidence and fabrication of material for use in court, not a distinct forgery offence that could bypass the special bar in Section 195. The attempt to recast the substance of the complaints as forgery was rejected.

Conclusion: No prima facie case of forgery under Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out to sustain a private complaint.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaints could be wholly quashed after the Magistrate's order converting them into private complaints was set aside.

Analysis: The revisional and writ proceedings had set aside the Magistrate's conversion of the complaints into private complaints and the process issued thereon. However, the original complaints themselves were not required to be extinguished merely because the conversion order was erroneous. The proper course was to restore the complaints to their original form and require them to proceed under the statutory drill applicable to Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The wholesale quashing of the complaints was unsustainable, and the original complaints were restored for further proceedings in accordance with Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The Court rejected the attempt to maintain the matter as an ordinary private complaint, but restored the original complaints so that they could proceed only through the special statutory procedure governing offences affecting court proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substance of the allegations is commission of offences under Sections 191 to 193 of the Indian Penal Code in or in relation to a proceeding in court, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a mandatory bar to private cognizance and the complaint can proceed only through Section 340; such a bar cannot be evaded by relabelling the allegations as forgery unless the ingredients of a false document under Section 464 are actually made out.

---