' MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J.---Petitioner has called in question the legality, propriety and validity of the orders dated 14th May, 2012 and 13th June, 2012 respectively passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pishin and Sessions Judge, Pishin whereby the complaint as well as revision petition filed by the petitioner were dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C.
Pertaining to offences under sections 193, 194 and 199. P.P.C. On the ground that the respondent No,1 lodged a complaint against him under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. In support of said complaint, respondents Nos.2 to 4 filed their fake and fabricated affidavits, thus the respondents have committed the aforementioned offences. Consequent upon above referred complaint, the petitioner furnished surety for maintaining peace. On receiving the complaint filed by the petitioner, learned Judicial Magistrate Pishin, forwarded the same to SHO Police Station Pishin for enquiry. The SHO in compliance of the order conducted enquiry and recorded the statements of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 who affirmed their stance taken in the affidavits. After submission of the report by the SHO, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pishin dismissed the complaint. Feeling dissatisfied with the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pishin, petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge, Pishin which too met with the same fate, hence instant Constitutional Petition.
3. Heard the petitioner in person who submitted that the fake and false affidavits filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 at the instance of respondent No, 1 prima facie make out a case within the meaning of sections 193, 196 and 199, P.P.C. But both the courts below committed material irregularity while dismissing the complaint as well as revision petition. The respondents were liable to have been prosecuted and sentenced for managing the false and fabricated evidence/affidavits against the petitioner.
' On the other hand Mr. Atiq-ur-Rehman, Additional Prosecutor-General strenuously opposed the - petition and contended that the petitioner has accepted the version made in the complaint under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. Filed by respondent No, 1 and has furnished peace surety. He stressed that after furnishing peace surety, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have filed the instant petition or challenge the legality and validity of the complaint or affidavits filed in support thereof.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused record of the case.
There is no cavil with the fact that a complaint was filed by respondent No,1 under sections 107/151, Cr.P.C. And in support of said complaint respondents Nos.2 to 4 filed their affidavits. It is also established that afterwards, respondents Nos.2 to 4 affirmed the contents of their affidavits while making statement during the course of inquiry both the courts below dismissed the complaint of petitioner on such ground. Besides the above position, in my humble opinion, the complaint so filed by the petitioner, suffers from an inherent legal defect as there is a bar on taking cognizance on such complaint within the meaning of section 195, Cr.P.C. Though, both the lower forums have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner on merits, yet have not adhered to the legal proposition i,e, the maintainability and cognizablity of the complaint within the ambit of section 195(1) clause (b), Cr.P.C. For ready reference section 195 is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, Prosecution for certain offences against public justice; Prosecution, for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Court shall take cognizance:
(a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.
(b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code namely sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate, or"
(c) of any ,offence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.,
(2) .............................................................................................................................
(3)
(4) .............................................................................................................................
(5)
5. I am conscious of the proposition contained in section 190, Cr.P.C. That any person, having knowledge of the commission of an offence, may set the law at motion by making a complaint, even if he is not personally interested in or affected by the offence. However, the provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. Are an exception to the general principle and thus there is limitation/bar on the power of a Magistrate to take cognizance in the offence enumerated therein. The object of the section is to stop private persons from obtaining sanction as a means of wreaking vengeance and 'to give the Court full discretion in deciding as to whether ally prosecution is necessary or not. The law on the subject stands settled that in case of offences contemplated under section 195, Cr.P.C.
Only the public authority or concerned Court has the right to file a complaint and, unless, there is a complaint by public authority or Court, as the case may be, no criminal Court shall take cognizance of these offences.
In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint filed by the petitioner was/is not cognizable and deserved to be dismissed. Though, this aspect of the case was not adhered by the lower forums, yet complaint being not sustainable has rightly been dismissed.
' Petition stands dismissed.
' These are the reasons of my short order of even date.