' Petitioner, Amir Mehmood, has called in question the legality of complaint filed by Respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and Akhtar Ali proforma respondent under Sections 468/471 PPC, through this Constitutional petition filed in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., and has sought quashing of the above-said complaint/Qalandra and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Police Station City Khanewal, as well.
2. Brief facts relevant for decision of this writ petition are that on 12.09.2012, Respondent No. 4 Tasawar Hussain filed a petition under Section 22-A, 22-B. Cr.P.C. Before the learned Justice of Peace, Khanewal for registration of case against the petitioner and Akhtar Ali proforma respondent alleging therein that he is the owner in possession of agricultural land situated in Chak No. 168/10-R Tehsil and District Khanwal which is being used for agricultural purposes. Amir Mehmood petitioner is residing in the adjacent land of Gharib Town. The petitioner moved an application before the House Building Finance Company Limited, Multan for obtaining loan for her mother Mst. Maqbool Bibi for construction of houses in Gharib Town in the year 2008 and for this purpose, the petitioner and pro-forma respondent had prepared a forged site-plan of Gharib Town and Tasawar City and while tendering those documents filed civil suit titled Amir Mehmood vs. Tasawar Hussain before the learned Civil Judge, Khanewal seeking a path from the property of Respondent No. 4, thus by using forged documents as genuine in the Court committed a cognizable offence. The learned Justice of Peace vide order dated 20.11.2012 found that offence under Section 468/471 PPC is non- cognizable, therefore, the Respondent No. 3 was directed to proceed according to law. In compliance of order of the learned Justice of Peace, the Respondent No. 3 prepared a complaint/Qalandra under Sections 468/471 PPC and submitted the same before the learned Respondent No. 2, who has taken cognizance of the matter and proceedings of the trial are on the way. Hence, this petition.
3. The question to be determined by this Court is that when no complaint has been made by the Court concerned; is the police competent to file complaint/Qalandra, if the facts of case attract the provisions of Section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C.?
4. At the outset, it may be expedient to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 195(1)(c) and Section 476(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which reads below:-- "Section 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.--(ii ) No Court shall take cognizance: (a)...................
(b)..................
(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.
' Section 476:--(1) When any offences referred to in Section 195, sub-section (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."
' The provisions as contained in Section 195(1)(c) contemplate that where an offence appears to have been committed by a party to any proceedings in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceedings, no Court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of the Court concerned or some other Court to which it is subordinate. The general rule is that any person irrespective of the fact whether he is aggrieved or not and his interest is at stake or otherwise having knowledge about the commission of any offence may set the law in motion but the provisions as contained in Sections 195, Cr.P.C. To 198, Cr.P.C. Possess some exceptions to the said general rule from taking cognizance of certain offences unless the functionary concerned institutes a complaint. Section 195 read with Section 476 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, empowers the Courts, other than the criminal Courts also to try the guilt or innocence of persons. This is, therefore, a provision, which deprives the ordinary criminal Courts of their ordinary jurisdiction. In my humble opinion, Section 195(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. Is a salutary provision in the law, which prevents a litigant in a civil matter from lodging a criminal complaint regarding alleged manoeuvred documents which are subject matter of civil proceedings. Had it not been so then every litigant would have been exposed to criminal prosecution, who had filed a civil suit based upon a certain documents. Hence, law has provided that such a complaint could only be lodged by the concerned Court, of course only after it reaches to the conclusion that the document in question was forged. I am of the considered view that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. Would apply to the cases of tampering with the record of a Court as well as to the cases of previously forged documents used as genuine in the Court proceedings.
5. Admittedly according to the averments of complaint/Qalandra, petitioner had used the forged site-plan while annexing with other documents in a civil suit titled Amir Mahmood vs. Tasawar Hussain before the learned Civil Judge, Khanewal. There is no denial to the facts that the proceedings were pending before the learned Civil Judge but the learned Civil Court has not lodged any complaint against the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant was neither the "Court concerned" nor "party in the proceedings" and after the filing of complaint by Respondent No. 3/SHO P.S. City Khanewal, petitioner was summoned to stand trial by Respondent No. 2/learned Magistrate 1st Class, Khanewal. Filing of complaint and summoning of petitioner by Respondents No. 3 and 2 respectively have defeated the provisions of Section 195 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Even otherwise, proceedings on the civil side are pending and the learned Civil Court after recording ,of evidence of both the parties will determine the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner and documents appended therewith.
6. In the light of what has been discussed herein above and in view of the provisions as contained in Section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C., this petition is accepted and the complaint/Qalandra filed by Respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and Akhtar Ali proforma respondent under Sections 468/471 PPC, and as well proceedings before the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Police Station City Khanewal are hereby quashed.