' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 24-10-2005 the petitioner filed an application against respondents Nos.2 to 8. The prayer made was for a direction to the respondent No,2 to register a criminal case.
The matter was entrusted to a learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace who got a report from the police and proceeded to dismiss the application on 15-4-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Malik Gul Nawaz) Narowal and 5 others PLD 1992 Lah. 178 to urge that in the circumstances of the case, the application could not have been dismissed on the ground that the document being in Court, the case can only be got registered on the complaint of the Court. All the respondents have been duly served. Only the respondent No,3 has turned up through his learned counsel who contends that since civil litigation is pending, the' registration of a criminal case has rightly be refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now according to the contents of the application filed by the petitioner, he has purchased some land from Mst. Rashidan Begum through her attorney Abdul Hayee vide Mutation No,699 attested on 6-6-2005. The agreement was made on 19-4-2005 whereunder a sum of Rs,14,50,000 was paid as earnest money out of the total consideration of Rs,25,00,000 and the mutation was attested after payment of the balance amount. The land was being cultivated by respondent No,3. Against the said respondent, the erstwhile owner filed ejectment proceedings which concluded in her favor. His appeal was dismissed on 13.5-2004 while his revision was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 16-7-2005.
During all this period, the said respondent never referred to any agreement to sell. However, on 18- 7-2005 he has filed a suit in the learned Civil Court appending therewith a receipt for Rs,6,00,000 on a normal paper bearing the date 13-5-2005. This receipt was stated to be forged. According to the report of the police, the said attorney, namely Abdul Hayee appeared before the S.H.O. To state that he had not executed the said receipt whereas he had received the entire sale consideration from the petitioner.
3-A. Now the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that since a suit has been filed on the basis of the said document, only the said Court can file a complaint for registration of the case.
4. To my mind, the impugned order runs directly in contravention of the said Full Bench judgment of this Court being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Their Lordships (I may note here that two of the Honourable Members of the said Full Bench were elevated to the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan) after reproducing clause (c) of section 195(1), Cr.P.C. Observed as follows at page 197 of the report:-- "As the two interpretations of clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Are so evenly balanced, the one that does not deprive the ordinary Criminal Courts of their ordinary jurisdiction and persons of the right of redress must be adopted. On that view of the matter also, the view that clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Does not apply to cases in which the forgery was committed before the institution of a suit or other proceedings in which the forged document is produced or given in evidence should, in my opinion, be preferred."
5. According to the application of the petitioner, the offending document bears the date 13-5-2005 whereas the suit was filed on 18-7-2005. This being so, the case in hand prima facie does not fall within the mischief of the said section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. This writ petition accordingly is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the application is declared to be without lawful authority and is set aside. The respondent No,2 S.H.O. Is directed to record the statement of the petitioner and to proceed further in the matter in strict accordance with law. No orders as to costs.