'CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.---Through this writ petition, quashment of F.I.R. No,180/2007 dated 13-4- 2007, registered under sections 420, 468, 471, at Police Station Jampur, District Rajanpur, lodged by respondent No,2, has been prayed for.
2. The facts in brief are that civil suit titled "Abdul Waheed and others v. Abdul Aziz and others", (suit for declaration) and "Abdul Aziz and others v. Abdul Waheed and others, (suit for partition), were pending adjudication before the learned Civil Judge, Jampur. Both the suits were decided by consolidated judgment and decree dated 6-3-2007. Two appeals filed against the above said judgments and decrees were admitted for regular hearing on 22-3-2007. Respondent No,2 lodged F.I.R. No,180/2007 on 13-4-2007 at Police Station Jampur under sections 420/ 468/471, P.P.C. On the allegations of producing alleged forged and fabricated documents before the learned trial Court. It has also been alleged in the F.I.R. That the learned trial Court has also accepted the forgery and fraud committed by the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the F.I.R. Has been lodged against petitioner No,1 being party to the suit; that the purpose behind the above-said criminal case is to pressurize the petitioner, that civil litigation has been given a colour of criminal litigation just to cause harassm ent and humiliation to the petitioners and that a cursory reference to the F.I.R.
In question would reveal that the basis of allegations are the observations of the learned trial Judge in the civil suit where the alleged forged and fabricated documents were produced. The learned counsel relied upon; 'Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain and another v. Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and 3 others 2004 YLR 716.
'Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Razzaque and others PLD 2005 Lah.
386.
'Abdul Wahab Khan v. Muhammad Nawaz and others 2000 SCMR 1904.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No,2 however, submits that the has been registered correctly by the police. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab also vehemently defends the registration of the F.I.R. He relied upon: 'Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276.
'Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others 2006 SCMR 1957.
'Muhammad Mansha v. Station House Officer, Police Station City Chiniot, District Jhang, PLD 2006 SC 598.
5. I have considered the arguments of both the parties and have perused the record.
6. I find that bare reading of the F.I.R. In question demonstrates that it is the outcome of the observations of the learned trial Court with respect to the alleged forged and fabricated documents produced before the Court. In such circumstances, the proper remedy in the case is two fold:
(i) an application under section 476, Cr.P.C. Before the learned trial Court; and
(ii) complaint by the learned trial Court under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of this Court reported in 2004 YLR 716 Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain and another v. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and 3 others; wherein it has been held that in such a matter where the alleged fabricated documents have been produced in the Court, it is only the Court, which can refer the matter to the criminal jurisdiction. The same view has been taken in PLD 2005 Lahore 386 (Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Razzaque and others) that when such an offence is committed, as the one in present case, the matter cannot proceed except on a complaint under section 195 by the trial Judge. The Honourable Apex Court in 2000 SCMR 1904 Abdul Wahab Khan v. Muhammad Nawaz and 7 others, has also observed as follows: "S.195(I)(C)---Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence---Clause
(C) of 5.1995 (I), Cr.P.C. Applies to only those offences that have a 'Close nexus between the offence and the proceedings'; in other words S.195(I)(C), Cr.P.C. Contemplates cases of tampering with the documents on the record of a Court or case of previously forged documents being used as genuine in certain proceedings."
'S.195(I)(C)---Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given an evidence--- Conditions necessary for the applicability of S.195(I)(C), Cr.P.C. Are that the offence mentioned should be committed by a party to the proceedings in Court, and that such offence should be in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding."
'Further the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite distinguishable from that of the facts of the case.
8. Thus I have no doubt in my mind that the criminal proceedings should have been initiated by the trial Court itself, or if respondent No,2 wanted to do the same, he could file an application under section 476, Cr . P.C.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No,2 has not produced any authority on the point in issue.
Some of the precedents referred by the learned counsel are not applicable as the same relate to quashment of the F.I.R. In generality.
10. There is another aspect of the matter and the same is that the Honourable Apex Court in PLD 2005 SC 842, PLD 2006 SC (AJ&K) 43 and 2007 SCMR 307 has observed that if a particular thing is required to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, otherwise it should not be done at all.
11. In sequel to what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R. No,180/2007 dated 13-4-2007 registered in Police Station Jampur, District Rajanpur under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Is hereby quashed being without jurisdiction and lawful authority.