' Through this petition the petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No,244 of 2004 dated 25-11-2004 under sections 419/420/467/468/471/ 506/109, P.P.C. Registered at Masti Gate, Lahore against the petitioner and others on the instance of Irfan Ahmad complainant.
' The prosecution case set up in the F.I.R. Is that one Amir-ud-Din along with his other brothers and sisters was owner of Property No,F-1982 situated in Kashmiri Bazar, Lahore, which he had allegedly sold to Irfan Ahmad complainant vide registered sale-deed dated 9-8-2004. The petitioner is tenant in the said property which comprised of a shop for the last 35 years and when the complainant demanded from the petitioner to pay the rent to him or to vacate the shop he threatened him to kill and further told him that he was himself owner of the shop vide agreement to sell dated 25-8-2004 purporting to show that Amir-udDin had agreed to sell the said shop to him for Rs,15,00,000 and had received Rs,10,00,000 as earnest money. Confronted with the said situation the complainant who is now the owner of the said property lodged report with the police that the petitioner had forged an agreement to sell to deprive him from the property and had also cheated the said Amir-ud-Din besides extending him threats to kill. During investigation the alleged sale agreement was sent to the Handwriting Expert whose report confirmed that the alleged signatures of Amir-ud-Din on the agreement to sell were not genuine.
' It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if the entire prosecution allegations are accepted to be true, the act of the petitioner only falls within the 1st clause of section 464, P.P.C.
That the petitioner had signed or executed an agreement to sell with the intention of causing it to be believed that the said agreement to sell had been signed or executed by Amir-ud-Din knowingly that he had not signed and executed the same and that this offence is punishable under section 468, P.P.C. Which is a non-cognizable offence and in view of the principle laid down in 1994 PLR 1017 Lahore the F.I.R. Cannot be registered in non-cognizable offences and investigation cannot take place without prior permission of the Magistrate and even arrest cannot be made before obtaining warrants of arrest from the Magistrate. It has been further argued that there is no prosecution allegation that the petitioner had in any manner forged a document which purported to be a valuable security or a will or aimed at giving authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security or to receive the principal, interest or dividend thereon or to receive or deliver any money, moveable property or any receipt acknowledging the payment of money and as such the application of section 467, P.P.C. To the facts of this case is not legally made out.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that it has not been alleged in the F.I.R. That the petitioner had in any manner cheated either Amir-ud-Din or the complainant and thereby dishonestly induced them to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security or any document capable of being converted into any valuable security. Therefore, application of section 420, P.P.C. Is also not legally warranted. It has also argued that the main allegation against the petitioner is that of forging an agreement to sell and the allegation that the petitioner extended threats to the complainant to kill him is only a consequential act and constitutes a supportive offence under section 506, P.P.C. And if the main allegation constitutes a non-cognizable offence then the consequential act even if constitutes a cognizable offence will not change the nature and character of the main allegation of the prosecution from non-cognizable to a cognizable one. It has also been argued that the complainant has merely levelled allegation of verbal threats and it has no where been alleged that while giving the threats the petitioner was armed with any kind of weapon so as to give impression to the complainant that the threat was of real substance and merely verbal threat would fall within the purview of section 506 Part-I, P.P.C. Which is also non-cognizable.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that besides forging the agreement to sell the petitioner had also extended threats to kill the complainant which constitutes offence under section 506, P.P.C. Which is cognizable and as such even if the other offences are non-cognizable the F.I.R. In this case can be legally lodged under section 154, Cr.P.C. And prima facie there is no material to quash the F.I.R.
5. The perusal of the F.I.R. And the, material collected during the investigation reveals that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he in any manner by cheating had dishonestly induced either the complainant or Amir-ud-Din to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and is capable of being converted into a valuable security, therefore, prima facie the application of section 420, P.P.C. To the facts of this case is not attracted. Similarly there is no allegation that the petitioner in any manner forged any document which purported to be a valuable security or a will or which purported to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security or to receive the principal, interest or dividend or to receive or deliver any money, moveable property or valuable security or any other document purporting to be a acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, therefore, prima facie the application of section 467, P.P.C. To the facts of this case is also not attracted. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had allegedly signed, prepared or executed an agreement to sell with the signatures of Amir-ud-Din which in fact are not his signatures. Therefore, the petitioner's act clearly falls within the purview of 1st clause of section 464, P.P.C. i,e, making of a false document and this offence is punishable under section 468, P.P.C.
Which is non-cognizable one. The allegation, that the petitioner extended threats to kill the complainant, is consequence of the act of forging an agreement to sell by the petitioner because the complainant allegedly demanded from the petitioner to either pay him the rent or to vacate the shop then on the strength of said forged agreement to sell the petitioner extended the alleged threats, therefore, the act of forging the document in this case is the main offence and the act of extending threats to kill the complainant is a supportive or a consequential offence and the registration of case in this case would be regulated by the main offence which in the present case is 468, P.P.C. And is non-cognizable. The contents of the F.I.R. Reveal that while giving the alleged threat to the complainant the petitioner was not armed with any weapon and he had only given verbal threats and thus, the complainant could not apprehend that the petitioner was capable of giving effect to his threats which could really subject the complainant to the alarm or apprehension that his death could be caused. Mere verbal threats would not take the case of the petitioner within the purview of section 506-II, P.P.C. And falls with the ambit of section 506 Part-I, P.P.C. Which is also a non-cognizable offence.
6. The information regarding commission of a cognizable offence is regulated by section 154, Cr.P.C. Whereas the information regarding commission of non-cognizable offence is regulated by section 155, Cr.P.C. Both these sections are reproduced below for ready reference:-- "154 Information in cognizable cases.--- Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer incharge of police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the (Provincial Government) may prescribe in this behalf.
155 Information in non-cognizable cases.--- (1) When information is given to an officer-in-charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter in the book to be kept as aforesaid the substance of such information and refer the informant to the Magistrate. ' Investigation in non-cognizable cases.--- No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of Magistrate of the first or second class having power to try such case or send the same for trial to the Court of Session.
' Any Police Officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case."
' Comparative reading of sections 154 and 155, Cr.P.C. Shows that under section 154, Cr.P.C. a statutory duty has been cast upon the officer-incharge of a police station to enter the information regarding commission of any cognizable offence in a register the form of which is prescribed by the Provincial Government which is known as F.I.R. Parlance. As regards recording of information of commission of a non-cognizable offence another book is prescribed which is known as "Roznamcha" or Station Diary in which information relating to commission of non-cognizable offence is recorded and generally the police does not initiate any action and the complainant or informant after being given a copy of the report so entered is sent away. However, if the S.H.O.
Deems fit to initiate the investigation then under subsection (2) of section 155 the Police Officer has to obtain order from the Magistrate and if any arrest is to be effected then it can only be made after obtaining warrant of arrest from the Magistrate under section 155(3), Cr.P.C. Section 156(1), Cr.P.C. Empowers an officer-in-charge of a police station to investigate any cognizable offence without any order of a Magistrate.##TE#
7. As the information given to the police in the present case only revealed commission of non- cognizable offences, therefore, the F.I.R. In this case under section 154, Cr.P.C. Could not have been registered straight away and the legal course available was to make a report regarding commission of a non-cognizable offences of sections 468 and 506 (Part-I), P.P.C. Under section 155(1), Cr.P.C. And then to seek the permission of the learned Illaqa Magistrate for conduct of the investigation under section 155(2), Cr.P.C. And if the arrest of the accused is to be effected then warrant of his arrest are to be obtained from the Magistrate as stipulated under section 155(3), Cr.P.C. As the said procedure has not been followed in this case, therefore, the manner in which the F.I.R. In question has been recorded and proceeded is not legally tenable. Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. Is quashed. The complainant is at liberty to re-initiate the proceedings if he so desires. This petition is disposed of.##TE# F.I.R. Quashed.