https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257045 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. en-us Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257045 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257045