' MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J.---Through this single judgment, this Court shall dispose of four writ petitions, as the common questions of facts and law are involved therein. The particulars of writ petition are as follows:--
(i) Nigah Hussain v. Circle Officer, ACE, Mansehra and others (Writ Petition No,942-A of 2012)
(ii) Dr. Misbah Ullah and others v. Director, ACE, KPK Peshawar and others (Writ Petition No,59-A of 2013)
(iii) Dr. Muhammad Amjad v. Circle Officer, ACE, Mansehra and others (Writ Petition No,109-A of 2013)
(iv) Muhammad Bashir v. Director, ACE, KPK and others (Writ Petition No,373-A of 2013)
2. Petitioners in all the aforementioned four writ petitions seek constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and praying that:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of writ petition, the registration of the case against the petitioner and others may kindly be declared to be without lawful authority and mala fide and may kindly be quashed.
3. The brief and essential facts leading to the present petitions are that on the report of Abid Khan son of Pervez Khan, respondent case F.I.R. No, 15 dated 20-1-2012 for offences chargeable under sections 324/34, P.P.C. Was registered in Police Station Baffa, District Mansehra against petitioner Nigah Hussain and one Muhammad Sajjad son of Abdul Sattar.
4. Petitioner Nigah Hussain also lodged a report on the same date i,e, 20-1-2012 at 1320 hours in Police Station Baffa against respondent Abid Khan and others for causing injuries to him and consequently case was registered vide F.I.R. No,19 under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. In Police Station Baffa..
5. ' The respondent Abid Khan being aggrieved of the registration of case F.I.R. No,19 moved an application to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Mansehra, wherein, he alleged that the said F.I.R.
Against them was lodged by Nigah Hussain petitioner on the basis of a forged and fake medico- legal report prepared by Dr. Misbah Ullah and Dr. Muhammad Amjad in connivance and with the help of Muhammad Arshad, X-ray Technician and. Muhammad Bashir, Head Clerk in King Abdullah Hospital, Mansehra and relative of petitioner Nigah Hussain. An inquiry was conducted into the matter by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Mansehra and consequently case vide F.I.R. No,5 dated 12-12-2012 under sections 217/218/109, P.P.C. Read with Section 5(2), P.0 Act, Police Station ACE, Mansehra was registered against the said petitioners in the aforementioned four writ petitions.
6. Valuable arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and available record thoroughly perused.
7. Admittedly, petitioner Nigah Hussain and respondent Abid Khan are at daggers drawn-due to previous criminal litigation between them, therefore, element of 'mala fide' could not be ruled out in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The local police after conducting thorough investigation in both the cases registered vide F.I.Rs, Nos. 15 and 19 had submitted complete challans' and trial has been commenced in both the said cases before the competent Court on 19-4-2012. Petitioner Nigah Hussain and one Muhammad Sajjad, co-accused were granted bail by this Court in case F.I.R. No,19 on 19-3-2012. Respondent Abid Khan moved application for open inquiry to Anti-corruption staff Mansehra on 10-4-2012. The petition filed by respondent Abid Khan before Supreme Court of Pakistan for cancellation of bail granted to petitioner Nigah Hussain and his co-accused Muhammad Sajjad was withdrawn by him on 5-7- 2012. It is of worth mentioning that the validity and authenticity of the Medico-legal report was not challenged by the respondent at bail stage. It was the contention of the respondent that petitioner Nigah Hussain in connivance with the other accused-petitioners got fabricated medico-legal report in his favour to falsely implicate the respondent and others in case F.I.R. No,19 dated 24-1- 2012 under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. It is well settled that once 'challan' within the meaning of section 173 of Cr.P.C. Is submitted before the trial Court, it is the trial Court alone to finally determine the authenticity and validity of any document placed on file after recording evidence of the witnesses with respect to a particular fact or document and no parallel investigation' or inquiry is permissible under the law. It is worth mentioning that an inquiry was already conducted by the Medical Superintendent, King Abdullah Hospital, Mansehra in respect of the medico-legal report in question. If the trial Court considers that the evidence given by a witness in respect of a particular document is false or the document so produced is forged or fake, the trial Court may C proceed against the said witness under section 193 of P.P.C. By adopting procedure provided in section 195 read with section 476 of Cr.P.C. Section 195 of Cr.P.C. And in particular the portion-that is relevant for the purpose of these petitions, i,e,, section 195(1)(c) reads as under:-- "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:
(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 i,e, 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."
' 476. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.---(1) When any offences referred to in section 195, subsection (1) clause (b) or clause (c), has been committed in, or in relation to a proceeding in any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, the Court may take cognizance of the offence and try the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII.
(2) When in any case tried under subsection (1) the Court finds the offender guilty, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of section 262:
(a) pass any sentence on the offender authorized by law for such offence, except a sentence of death, or, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment exceeding five years, if such Court be a High Court, a Court of Session, a District Court, or any Court exercising the power of a Court of Session or a District Court;
(b) sentence the offender to simple imprisonment, for a term which may extend to three months, or to pay a fine not exceeding [one thousand rupees) or both, if such Court be a Court of Magistrate of the first class, a Civil. Court other than a High Court, a District Court, or a Court exercising the powers' of a District Court or Revenue Court not inferior to the Court of Collector; (c)
(c) sentence the offender to simple imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to pay a fine not exceeding fifty rupees or both, If such Court be a Criminal Court or Revenue Court other than a Court referred to in clause (a) or clause (b).
(3) The powers conferred on Civil, Revenue and Criminal Courts under this section may be exercised in respect of any offence referred to in subsection (1) and alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in such Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of subsection (3) of S.195.
(4) Any person sentenced by any Court, under this section may, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, appeal;
(a) in the case of a sentence by the. High Court, to the Supreme Court;
(b) in case of a sentence by a Court of Session or District Court, or a Court exercising the powers of a Court of Session or a District Court, to the High Court, and
(c) in any other case, to the Session Judge.
(5) The provisions of Chapter XXXI shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to appeal under this section and the Appellate Court may alter the finding or reduce or enhance the sentence appealed against.
476-A. Forwarding of cases for trial by Courts having jurisdiction. (1) If the Court in any case considers that the person accused of any of the offence referred to in section 476, subsection (1), and committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings before it, should not be tried under that section, such Court may, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused person, as hereinbefore provided, forward the case to a Court having jurisdiction to try the case, and may require security to be given for the appearance of such accused person before such Court, or, if sufficient security is not given, shall forward such person in custody to, such Court.
(2) The Court to which a case is forwarded under this section shall proceed to hear the complaint' against the accused person in the manner herein before provided."
' Thus, in view of abovementioned clear provisions, initiation of inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Establishment and consequent thereupon registration of case against the petitioners appears to be based on 'mala fide' and result of illegal exercise of jurisdiction and without lawful authority. In such like circumstances, the High Court is competent to exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In this regard, the apex Court in Anwar Ahmad Khan's case (1996 SCM R 24) has held that:- "It is well settled principle that where investigation is mala fide or without jurisdiction, the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is competent to correct such proceedings and pass necessary order to ensure justice and fair play. The investigating authorities do not have the entire and total authority of running investigation according to their whims."
8. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinbove, all the four petitions are admitted and allowed and consequently case F.I.R. No,5 dated 12-12-2012 under sections 217/218/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), P.C. Act, Police Station ACE, Mansehra is quashed.