' During the course of recording evidence in two Civil Suits Nos.632/1 of 1993 and 628/1 of 1994, the defendant, Syed Kausar Abbas Shah had appeared as his own witness on 11-3-2000 wherein during the flow of denial of certain facts, he appears to have denied certain realities as well. The plaintiff of the said cases had filed criminal complaints under section 193, P.P.C. Read with sections 190/195/476, Cr.P.C. For initiating criminal proceedings against the defendant for committing perjury. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 1-11-2000, rejected the applications. However, during appeals, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, D.I. Khan directed that the said applications of the petitioner be treated as complaints and that the learned trial Court may proceed against the respondent according to law. This quashment petition and the connected similar petition No.37 of 2002 have been filed to challenge the said order and for the purpose of quashing the proceedings before the criminal Court on remand.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has committed no perjury and he has stated the truth, therefore, the proceedings of criminal nature were merely to harass the petitioner for the recovery of the suit money. It was also argued that any observation with regard to the truth or falsehood of a statement could not be determined prior to the finalization of proceedings in the civil suit. Hence, it was stated that the criminal proceedings were premature.
3. Prima facie, the contents of the criminal complaints hold force and the said statement of the petitioner has not been believed to be true by the original Court, the Appellate Court as well as by this Court in the civil proceedings. Hence, the further inquiry and trial will neither be premature nor entirely baseless. The attitude of the petitioner was not of a responsible citizen. During the flow of denying certain controversial facts, he had also denied certain hard facts and this attitude cannot be encouraged in the process of fair administration of justice. A person coming to the Court of law is supposed to assist the adjudication of the matter. He may deny certain issues and may not be compelled to respond to certain questions but the adamant attitude of denying the days and the nights indicates an impunity which has to be handled. The affidavits and the statements on oath are based on certain established judicial practices and major decisions are taken on such documentary and oral evidence but the denial of universal truths displays that the rest of the evidence was also without substance. This also demonstrates the wilful misleading and non- cooperative attitude. Such cannot be the desirable posture of a common citizen even in the normal routine life but while appearing in Courts and recording statements on oaths, one has to demonstrate an extra care of speaking the truth to the best of his ability.
4. Therefore, the petitioner will have the opportunity to prove the truth of his statement during inquiry and trial of the case and further remedies are still open. He is not placed in an irreversible situation. So, the learned Appellate Court has properly taken cognizance of the matter and directed the appropriate action. There is neither any miscarriage of justice nor the situation calls for invoking the extraordinary remedy under section 561-A, Cr. P. C .
5. Without prejudice to the result of the case after trial, the quashment petitions are without force and both of them are dismissed.