1. ' This application has been filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. By applicants wherein they have prayed that proceedings pending against them in a complaint case No,95/1981 before the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi be quashed.
2. ' The fact briefly stated are that one Ghulab Din is the owner of a Saw Mills and a plot situated at Quaidabad, Karachi. He purchased this plot from one Muhammad Ali in the year 1969. The complainant Gulab Din's employed applicant No,2, and Shabir Ahmed respondent No,3, to run his business. One Shah Nazar was employed by the respondent No,2, for the purchase of transportation of woods. Abdul Satter was a dealer of woods. The complainant used to purchase wood from Abdul Sattar.
3. ' The applicants with criminal intentions planned to usurp the Saw Mills and the land of the complainant and in furtherance of their common intention they obtained non-judicial stamp paper and prepared a forged sale-deed and receipts for Rs,50,000 with the signatures of Gulab Din respondent No,2. It is shown in these documents that Gulab Din had sold Saw Mills and plot to Abdul Sattar Appellant No,1.
4. ' In the meanwhile Abdul Sattar filed a theft case against the complainant and his employee Shah Nazar at Quaidabad Police Station and got them arrested and in his absence the applicants took possession of Saw Mills and the plot. As soon as Gulab Din was granted bail the applicants filed second case under section 506/34, P.P.C. Against him and Shah Nazar. Both the cases are pending.
5. The civil suit for permanent injunction was also filed by Abdul Sattar against the respondent No,2.
6. ' On knowing this Gulab Din respondent No,2, filed direct complaint. After preliminary enquiry the case was brought on file. The applicants filed application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Before Vth Additional Sessions Judge who has rejected the application therefore they have filed this petition.
7. ' Mr. Gul Zaman, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that documents alleged to have been forged by the applicant are subject-matter of civil proceedings. The criminal proceedings have been filed with mala fide intentions just to harass the applicant so that they may withdraw from the civil suit. He has also argued that there is delay of more than two years filing of this complaint.
8. ' Mr. Sharif Khattak, Advocate for respondent No,2, has contended that civil suit has been filed for injunction only and not for declaration.
9. ' Mr. Gul Zaman has cited PLD 1974 Kar. 403 and contended that under section 195, Cr.P.C. This complaint is not competent and his Lordship Mr. Justice Abdul Hayee Kureshi held that documents, even though forged before institution of suit, bar contained in under section 195(1)(c) operative with equal force if documents subsequently used in judicial proceedings. He has also cited 1979 P Cr. L J 941 wherein it has been held that cognizance under section 188, P.P.C. Initiated by Police Officer himself although under section 195, Cr.P.C. Requiring Court to take cognizance of offence on complaint in writing of public servant concerned. In case of contravention of under section 195, Cr.P.C. Proceedings are liable to be quashed.
10. ' On the other hand Mr. M.S. Khattak, Advocate for the respondent No,2, has cited PLD 1968 SC 281, wherein it has been held that normally criminal proceedings should not be postponed pending the disposal of civil litigation connected with the same subject-matter. In another case 1972 SCMR 85, wherein it has been held that in case of subject-matter of proceedings same in both criminal cases as well as civil suit there is no invariable rule that criminal proceedings be postponed pending disposal of civil litigation.
11. ' Mr. Makhdoom Abdul Wali, Advocate for the State has argued that title is not under dispute in civil suit which has only be filed for injunction but no declaration is being sought therefore under section 195. Cr.P.C, is not applicable. The case has not proceeded and evidence has not yet been recorded. Previous Cr.Miscellaneous Quashment Application No,46/82 was not allowed by this Court because applicant had not filed application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
12. The merits have not been touched in this application by Mr. Gul Zaman. The process was ordered after necessary preliminary enquiry. This application for quashment is premature as evidence has riot been recorded. In my opinion applicant cannot get benefit of section 195, Cr. P.C. As the civil suit has not been filed about for declaration and not for the determination title of property in question.
13. Both the cases are independent, therefore I order that let this case proceed. The trial Court decide it on merits. The application is therefore dismissed.