' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This is an application for cancellation of ed to respondent No.1 by this Court on 15-5-2006 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3559-B of 2006. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that report from Director (Technical), F.I.A. Was received and the same is positive, which goes against the respondent and while confirming bail before arrest of the respondent, it was held by this Court that "it is made clear that if the report comes to the effect that the signatures were not made by Ikram (husband of the complainant) then she would be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of pre-arrest ed to the petitioner/respondent by this Court." He submits that in view of the report of Handwriting Expert the bail of the respondent should be cancelled. Further submits that on the last date of hearing respondent submitted before this Court that he had given an application to Additional Director F.I.A. For taking necessary legal action against Malik Shaukat and Munir Shah, Inspectors F.I.A. Because both of them had demanded Rupees two lakh and also a plot from him and on the said date, this Court had asked Mr. Muhammad Aslam Zar, learned Standing Counsel, F.I. A . To direct Additional Director, F.I.A. To complete the inquiry and submit his report, He submits that now inquiry report has been received in which the allegation levelled by the respondent has been found to be false. He submits that now a case for cancellation of bail is made out.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent is 70 years of age, challan has been submitted, no useful purpose can be served by cancelling his bail and above all he submits that there is complete bar under section 195, Cr.P.C. For the registration of case by a public persons because the documents are attached with the civil suit filed by the respondent, same are sub judice before the Civil Judge and unless Civil Court comes to the conclusion that those are the forged documents, no case could have been registered. He has relied upon 1988 PCr.LJ 2033, 1993 PCr.LJ 1208, 1996 M LD 1362, 1997 M LD 2097, 1988 SCM R 1129 and 1999 PCr.LJ 142.
3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel F.I.A. Assisted by learned counsel for the State submits that not only report of Handwriting Expert is against the respondent but the application filed by him levelling allegation of corruption against Malik Shaukat and Munir Shah, Inspectors, F.I.A. Have been found to be false by Ch. Khadim Hussain, Director (Technical), F.I.A., Islamabad, so according to them, case for cancellation of bail is made out.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at a very great length. Respondent was allowed bail before arrest by this Court on 15-5-2006 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3559-B of 2006 but with the condition that in case report of Handwriting Expert comes against him, complainant shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail against him and I had directed that all the requisite papers should be taken from both the parties and those should be sent to Director (Technical), F. I. A . , Islamabad for comparison, this order of mine was challenged before the apex Court through Criminal Petition No.543-L of 2006 in which their Lordship vide order dated 6-7-2006 came to the conclusion that "contending that the same documents are subject-matter of the civil litigation the parties are entangled in, with which we are not impressed because civil litigation is independent of the criminal proceedings which would have no bearing on the fate of the former to be adjudged on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. Resultantly, the same fails and is hereby dismissed." As far as, section 195, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, there is a Full Bench judgment of this Court in a case titled as Muhammad Shafiq v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Malik Gul Nawaz), Narowal and 5 others and the same is reported in PLD 1992 Lahore 178 , relevant head-notes O & P are re-produced below:- ' S.195(1)(c).----Provision of S.195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Does not apply to cases in which the forgery was committed before the institution of a suit or other proceeding in which the forged document was produced or given in evidence.
' 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 also, the view that cause of subsection (1) of section 196 of the Cr.P.C. Does not apply to cases in which forgery was committed before the institution the,forged document is produced or given in evidence should be preferred.
(p) Interpretation of Statutes--- ---Two evenly balanced interpretations of provision of Criminal Procedure Statute possible---One that does not deprive the ordinary Criminal Courts of their jurisdiction and person of the right of redress must be adopted."
' The civil suit was filed on 17-9-2005, documents allegedly forged by the respondent were executed on 11-1-2005 and 19-1-2005 while the deceased husband of the complainant died on 14- 2-2005, so the execution of documents is before the institution of civil suit filed by the respondent and their Lordships in the above noted judgment had held that ordinary Criminal Court was empowered to proceed against the said accused person and there is no bar of section 195 of the Cr.P.C. In the instant case, not only the report of Handwriting Expert is against the respondent but the allegations levelled by him against two Inspectors of F.I.A., namely, Malik Shaukat and Munir Shah, are also found to be false by Ch. Khadim Hussain, Director (Technical), F.I.A. Islamabad, who had held the detailed inquiry and given detailed reasons in this regard. Taking into consideration, all the above said facts, I am of the considered opinion that a case for cancellation of bail is made out against the respondent, so ing order passed by this Court on 15-5-2006 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3559-B of 2006 in favour of the respondent is hereby recalled by accepting B this petition and he shall be taken into custody by the relevant authority.
Bail cancelled.