' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Syed Faraz Shah was arrested on 9-8-2010 in case F.I.R. No, 195 of 2010 dated 23-2-2010 for offences under sections 420, 468, 467, 471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rawalpindi on the complaint of Malik Muhammad Nawaz who has alleged in the F.I.R.
That he was the complainant of case F.I.R. No, 1154 recorded at the same Police Station under section 489-F, P.P.C. Against one Idrees Khan who after having been arrested was sent to judicial lock-up; Idrees Khan moved an application for bail after arrest, during the pendency whereof Syed Mehdi Nawaz (petitioner), was appointed a guarantor who vide agreement deed No, 488 dated 18- 9-2009 consented in presence of the witnesses, to satisfy the claim of the complainant in respect of case F.I.R. No, 1154 supra, by selling his property measuring 1 kanal, Khewat Nos. 612 to 614 Khatooni No, 406, Khasra No, 1418 worth Rs, 12,50,000 situated at Village Dhalyal, Rawalpindi and handed down a copy of record of rights pertaining to the said property to Malik Muhammad Nawaz complainant; the petitioner also got recorded his statement on 16-9-2009 before the learned Magistrate, Rawapindi qua the said fact, in response to which the complainant showed his willingness before the learned trial Court to the acceptance of the bail application of Idrees Khan accused who was released on bail due to the afore-said facts; the complainant as per above arrangement demanded the amount of Rs, 15,00,000 from Syed Mehdi Faraz Shah (petitioner) on 8-11-2009 who put him off for sometime and then asked one Raja Amjad to intervene for seeking extension of the target date and reiterated his version that he would do the needful within next 15 to 20 days; Raja Amjad and Syed Mehdi Faraz Shah again sought for another extension in the time limit but despite having availed the same he (petitioner). Neither made payment to the complainant nor transferred any land in his name; the complainant on suspicion got verified from the Revenue Department, the entries of the copy of record of rights, given to him by the petitioner and he was informed that the said entries were bogus, for, he was not the owner of the said property and that the Fard jamabandi had not been issued by the Revenue Department. Hence the instant case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case under a conspiracy hatched up by the complainant and his co-witnesses; the petitioner does not owe any amount to the complainant so he cannot claim any right, of the statement of the petitioner, recorded by the learned Magistrate on 16-9-2009; the petitioner has neither fabricated any forged document nor has used the same as genuine; the offence under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. Are bailable whereas sections 467 and 468 are non-cognizable; the prosecution does not possess the original copy of the record of rights so the prosecution case shall be deemed as a case of no evidence; a bar has been created by section 195, Cr.P.C. As to the taking of cognizance without fulfillment of the requirement of the said section, so the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner is violative of law; the offence with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And his case calls for further inquiry within the meanings of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Relied upon "Saeed Ahmad v. The State" (1996 SCMR 1132), "Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2010 YLR 2064) and "Muhammad Shahid Maqbool Bhatti v. Sajid Hussain and another" (2010 MLD 722).
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that the petitioner on one hand befooled the complainant by his deceptive and fraudulent deed and on the other hand fetched a bail granting order for Idrees Khan accused fraudulently, from the Court of learned trial Magistrate; Idrees Khan accused after having been admitted to post arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No, 1154 supra has absconded which straightaway shows the element of conspiracy hatched up by the petitioner and the released accused; the petitioner is a dare devil who despite having nothing to do with the ownership of the above said landed property, recorded a statement before the learned trial Court showing himself as owner of the same, agreed to satisfy the claim of the complainant and also produced the above said agreement deed before the learned trial Court with the contention that he would be bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement deed but he did all that, with a criminal intent to commit fraud and forgery; the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the ambit of prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C., because of the criminal act of the petitioner Idrees Khan accused has also absconded; section 195, Cr.P.C. Does not debar the registration of a criminal case against an offender for the afore said offences. The prosecution case brims with connecting evidence against the petitioner so he may not be released on bail. Relies upon "Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Shafi" (2008 SCMR 235), "Syed Riaz Hussain v. The State" (2010 YLR 2093) and "Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Malik Gul Nawaz)" PLD 1992 Lahore 178.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties raised at the bar and perused the relevant record.
5. Malik Muhammad Nawaz, complainant had got lodged the above said Criminal Case No, 1154 for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station, Civil Lines, Rawalpindi against one Idrees Khan who was arrested and sent to judicial lock-up. He moved post-arrest bail application before the learned trial Court and it was the stage when Syed Mehdi Faraz Shah, petitioner stepped into the scene and offered himself as guarantor on behalf of Idrees Khan qua the claim of the complainant to receive Rs,12,50,000 from Idrees Khan. The petitioner with a view to satisfy all, including the complainant got prepared an agreement Deed No,488 on 18-9-2009 wherein he categorically showed himself to be the owner of a piece of land measuring 1 kanal, Khewat Nos.612 to 614 Khatooni No,406, Khasra No,1428, situated at Village Dhalyal, Rawalpindi and showed its value at Rs,12,50,000. He in this agreement deed claimed to be the owner in possession of the said land. To put more force to his contention, he handed down a copy of the record of rights qua the said land to the complainant. During the proceedings of the bail application of Idrees Khan, the petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate to get his statement recorded, in line with the language and text of the captioned agreement deed No, 488 and pledged to be bound down by its terms and conditions. Following the statement of the petitioner, the statement of Idrees Khan, accused was also recorded by the learned Magistrate, the same day who too consented to act upon the above said agreement. Being satisfied, the complainant also stated before the learned trial Court that he had no objection to the acceptance of post-arrest bail application of Idrees Khan accused on the basis of compromise. Consequently, Idrees Khan was released. The complainant waited for the petitioner to act upon his words but he showed no signs or willingness to keep his promise instead he introduced one Raja Amjad in this case and succeeded in obtaining the mandate of another 15 to 20 days for fulfillment of his ,promise but it did not help at all, as he neither satisfied the claim, of the petitioner nor showed any seriousness or sincerity in this regard, In the meanwhile, above said Idrees Khan after having been released on bail, absconded who is still at large. Being disappointed of the conduct of the petitioner the complainant on his own approached the concerned revenue department to verify, whether the petitioner was the owner of the said property or not and he was astounded to learn that he had no concern with the said landed property nor the copy of record of rights was issued by the Revenue authorities. Case of the petitioner is of multiple dimensions and he appears to have committed the offence in a systematic manner hardly caring for the principles of morality or the decorum of the courts. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution does not possess the original FARD of the copy of record of rights so the petitioner was entitled to bail, I am afraid is not helpful to the petitioner as it has been alleged in the F.I.R. That the accused had delivered the copy of the record of rights to the complainant to satisfy him which shows that the original Farad Jaman Bandi was in the possession of the petitioner. So far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of a bar contained in section 195, Cr.P.C. The accused could not be prosecuted nor the F.I.R. Could have been registered is not tenable. The registration of a criminal case is entirely a different phenomena from the one, pertaining to the taking of cognizance by a Court of law on a report under section 173, Cr.P.C, and A the complaint within the meaning of section 195, Cr.P.C. Can be made a part of the prosecution record even after the registration of the F.I.R. As there is no compelling restriction in this regard. The offence under sections 468, 471, P.P.C.
Being non-cognizable can be validly investigated by the police without fulfillment of requirement of section 155(2), Cr.P.C. As section 420, P.P.C. Is cognizable and in presence of a cognizable offence, the non-cognizable offences can be lawfully investigated by the police without seeking prior permission of the Magistrate. It is high time that the offences, who committed such like offences without any prick of conscience and hardly care for the decorum of the Court should be taken to task dynamically. The wrong done by the petitioner has not only deprived the complainant of his sizeable amount of money but also he has been instrumental in getting the above said accused Idrees Khan released from the prison on the basis of a statement made by him with mala fide and criminal intent. Halqa patwari submitted a report before the Investigation Officer on 4-8-2010 that the entries contained in the copy of record of rights, delivered to the complainant by the petitioner, were false and that the said document had not been issued by him. The petitioner does not appear to be innocent at all in the whole episode and there are reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed the offence, alleged against him. The petitioner has the history of involvement in a couple of other criminal cases of the alike nature. The attending circumstances of this case do not constitute need for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
' For what has been discussed above I am not inclined to accept this application which stands dismissed.