1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. By the impugned order, the High Court of Madras quashed the prosecution of the respondents, which was launched under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472 and 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) on the ground that the complaint was barred under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”). Undisputedly, the forgery is said to have been committed before the document was filed. Earlier, there was diverse opinion of this Court as to whether protection of Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. was available in relation to forgery committed prior to the filing of document or after its filing. A Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, III (2005) SLT 154=II (2005) CCR 16 (SC)=(2005) 4 SCC 370 [LQ/SC/2005/353] : 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1101, has categorically laid down in para 33 of the judgment that protection engrafted under Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it had been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. This being the position, in our view, the High Court was not justified in quashing prosecution of the respondents on the ground that provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. were applicable.

4. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondents are entitled to claim protection under Section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C., which enumerates the offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188, IPC. It has been pointed out that according to the petition of complainant, the accused persons had falsely filed a complaint before the Deputy Registrar, Chits, who dismissed the matter finally. The said complaint was not dismissed by the Deputy Registrar on merits, but without any adjudication, inasmuch as there was no finding that the complainant had lodged a false complaint before the Deputy Registrar. The present complaint does not relate to falsity or otherwise of the complaint before the Deputy Registrar; rather according to the prosecution case, the accused persons are said to have forged the document. This being the position, in our view, the provisions of Section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C., shall have no application to the case in hand. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing prosecution of the respondents.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside. Now, the Trial Court shall further proceed with the trial in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any observation in this order.