Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.340 – Penal Code,1860 – ss.191 and 192 – Respondent/accused-proprietory concernhad shared a business relationship with the appellants – Disputearose between the parties, as a result of which various suits werefiled by the appellants – The respondents filed their written statementsand counter-claims in the said suits filed by the appellants – Theappellants filed criminal complaints and contended that respondent/accused had given false evidence and had forged debit notes andmade false entries in books of accounts – The Magistrate convertedthe said complaints into private complaints and issued process u/ss.191, 192 and 193 IPC – The respondent filed revision applicationsagainst the said orders, in which it was stated that the bar containedin s.195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.PC and the procedure u/s.340 Cr.PC beingmandatory could not be circumvented – In a counter-affidavit tothe revision application, the appellants for the first time took theplea that offences u/ss.463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474,475 and 477-A of the IPC were also made out against therespondents, as a result of which a private complaint would bemaintainable – The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revisionand quashed the complaints – Writ petitions filed by the appellantswere dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Iqbal SinghMarwah case is clear authority for the proposition that in caseswhich fall u/s.195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.PC, the document that is saidto have been forged should be custodia legis after which the forgerytakes place – Further, various judgments of the Supreme Court alsolay down that when s.195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.PC is attracted, the ratioof Iqbal Singh Marwah case is not attracted and that therefore, iffalse evidence is created outside the Court premises attracting ss.191/192 of the IPC, the aforesaid ratio would not apply so as to validatea private complaint filed for offences made out under these sections– A perusal of the complaints filed in the instant case, leaves nomanner of doubt that the first complaint attracts the provisions ofs.191 of the IPC and the second complaint attracts the provisionsof s.192 of the IPC – The debit notes that are said to be created bythe respondents, it is clear that the debit notes were not ‘falsedocuments’ u/s.464 IPC, inasmuch they had not been made with theintention of causing it to be believed that they were made by orunder the authority of some other person – Since this basic ingredientof forgery itself is not made out, none of the sections that are soughtto be relied upon in chapter XVIII of the IPC can thus said to beeven prima facie attracted in the facts of the present case – Thefacts clearly show that the two complaints correctly invoked s.195r/w. s.340 of the Cr.PC and were then sought to be converted intoprivate complaints thereby attempting to fix a square peg in a roundrole – This has correctly been interdicted by the Sessions Court inrevision and by the High Court under appeal – While it is correct tosay that the order of conversion and issuing of process thereafteron a private complaint may not be correct, yet the two complaintsas originally filed can still be pursued – Therefore, the twocomplaints reinstated in their original form so that they may beproceeded further, following the drill of s.195 and s.340 of Cr.PC.