' Dismissed as infructuous.
2. Learned counsel says he has complied with the office objections.
3. Learned counsel submits that allegedly the respondent No,2, Usman Ibrahim had entered into an agreement with the petitioner Zoeb Akhtar Ali Ferozpurwala regarding a civil transaction. Per the petitioner his signatures were forged by the respondent No,2 upon such agreement and hence the latter had approached the learned District and Sessions Judge under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For the lodging of the F.I.R. Which was refused vide impugned order hence the petition. Learned counsel says that although the respondent No,2 had filed Civil Suit No,445 of 2006 before this Court on its original side in which the same controversy is in issue viz. Forging of the petitioner's signature by the respondent No,2 per settled law, civil and criminal proceedings can continue side by side simultaneously. For this proposition he has relied upon Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Sharif and others 2006 SCM R 1192 and Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others 2006 SCM R 512.
He, therefore, prays that notice be issued to the respondents for the next date of hearing.
' We have heard learned counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the case we had asked him as to how the provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Can be overcome as the said section clearly provides that where any offence as described under section 463, P.P.C. Punishable under sections 471, 475 and 476 has been alleged to have been committed by a party in any proceedings in any Court in respect of the documents produced or given in evidence in such proceedings then no Court shall take cognizance of the same except by complaint in writing by such Court. To this query learned counsel relied upon the cases cited by him. In our opinion the said cases are not at all relevant to the facts of the present case. In the case of Rafique Bibi (supra) the prayer for lodging of an F.I.R. Pertained to alleged manipulation in the Revenue Record which was delayed by over 26 years and hence quashed by the High Court. The Honourable Supreme Court held that where such delay has been explained that could be considered by the trial Court in the matter. Similarly the Honourable Supreme Court also observed that criminal and civil proceedings can continue simultaneously. In the case of Sardar Khalid Saleem (supra) again the case revolved around the quashment of an F.I.R. On the ground that the offence in question viz. Section 489-F, P.P.C. Was not on the statute book when the crime was committed. The Honourable Supreme Court held that mere mentioning of said section 489-F, P.P.C. In the F.I.R. Was no ground to quash the same as the contents of the F.I.R. Clearly made out other offences against the accused. Again it was observed that both the criminal and civil proceedings could continue simultaneously as in the instant case civil proceedings were also in existence.
In our opinion, section 195(1)(c) is a salutary provision in the law which prevents a litigant in a civil matter from lodging a criminal complaint regarding alleged manipulation of documents which are the subject-matter of such proceedings. If this were not the case then every litigant who had filed a civil proceeding based upon certain documents would be exposed to criminal prosecution by the other side who had challenged the genuineness of such documents. Hence the law has provided that such a complaint could only be lodged by the concerned Court, of course only after it come to the conclusion that the document in question was forged.
' We are fortified in our view by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Wahab v. Muhammad Nawaz and 7 others reported in 2000 SCM R 1904 wherein it has been held that the bar contained in section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Would apply to the cases of tampering with the record of a Court as well as to the cases of previously forged documents used as genuine in the Court proceedings.
' For all the foregoing reasons, we find nothing wrong with the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine.