' TARIQ SHAMIM, J-Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala/respondent No,l dated 29-5-2006 whereby on the application of respondent No,3 under section 22-A Cr.P.C. The learned Judge directed the S.H.O.
Police Station Nawan Shehr to register F.I.R. Against the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Was filed by respondent No,3 against the petitioner who is his real brother on the allegation that he being issueless and owner of landed property, the petitioner in order to grab his property has falsely got recorded the parentage of his son namely Sadaqat Ali as Ahmad Nawaz (respondent No,3) in the school record. Respondent No,l called for comments from the S.H.O. Which were submitted on 6-5- 2006. The learned Justice of Peace after hearing the parties passed the impugned order.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent No,3 are real brothers and on the request of respondent No,3 being issueless the parentage of Sadaqat Ali his son was written as Ahmad Nawaz in good faith and without malice and no forgery had been committed by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,3 has submitted that the petitioner got incorporated the name of respondent No,3 as father of Sadaqat Ali in order to grab the agricultural land belonging to the said respondent hence the petitioner has committed the offence of forgery in the record of the school .
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. A perusal of the comments submitted by the police reveals that respondent No,3 did not file any application with the police nor he did appear before the S.H.O. In respect of the matter. Further no witnesses have been produced by the said respondent in support of his case. It appears that petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Was filed by respondent. No,3 on mere apprehensions. In the first place, the land in question is still in the name of respondent No,3 and no benefit of any sort has been obtained by the petitioner or his minor son secondly the application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. .Attached as Annex-A with the petition does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. Grievance of respondent No, 3 can be successfully redressed through appropriate proceedings, for the rectification of the school record. On Court query, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,3 could not point out any provision of Penal Code which would be attracted in the instant case.
7. For what has been discussed above, the petition is accepted and the orders of the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, dated 29-5-2006 being unsustainable in law are set aside.