This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr. P.C. Has been filed for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners under section, 467/420, P. P. C. In the Court of Sessions Judge, Shikarpur.
2. The facts of the case are that on the application of Siraj Ahmed a case under section 467/420.
P.P.C. Has been registered at the Police Station, Stuart Ganj, Shikarpur on 21-4-1984. After usual investigation applicants have been challaned. The allegation against the petitioner is that they prepared a forged agreement relating to sale of two shops of Siraj Ahmad.
3. Mr. Syed Shamsuddin Shah Advocate for the petitioners argued that complainant on coming to know of the civil suit moved Martial Law Authorities and got the case registered. He has submitted in view of provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr. P.C., no Court can take cognizance of any offence described in section 463 in respect of document already produced or given in evidence in proceedings. He has cited 1981 PCr.LJ 338; 1977 P Cr. L J 546; PLD 1968 Lah. 451; 1984 P Cr. L J 1340 and PLD 1974 Kar. 403.
4. Mr. Syed Zawar Hussain learned A.A.-G. Does not support the quashment. He argued that petitioners had been challaned under section 467/420. P.P.C. And according to him petitioners cannot get protection of section 195(1)(a) so far offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is concerned as section is not covered.
5. F. C. Civil Suit No. 28 of 1984 has been filed by the petitioner on 4-3-1984 against complainant Siraj Ahmed and others which is pending. The written statement has been filed. The reliance in the civil suit has been placed on the alleged sale agreement executed by complainant Siraj Ahmed. In written statement Siraj Ahmed has staled that no such agreement was made for sale of shops. The criminal proceedings were instituted on the application, dated 10-3-1984 of Siraj Ahmed. The police was directed by Assistant Martial Law Administrator by an order, dated 12-3-1984 to register case.
The case was, however, registered on 21-4-1984 at Police Station Stuart Ganj, Shikarpur as crime No.29/1984. It is evident that criminal case has been filed after the civil, suit. The same sale agreement is subject-matter of dispute in both the cases. Now the question arises whether the present case instituted by the complainant is maintainable in view of the provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C.
Section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure states as follows:- Section 195(1). No Court shall take cognizance:- (a)of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Except 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, 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.
(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."
The provisions of section 476, Cr.P.C. Are corresponding procedural provisions governing the proceedings anterior to the filing of the complaint under section 476, Cr.P.C. In any civil, revenue or criminal Court as an application, being made be it or otherwise coming to the conclusion that it is expedient and the interest of justice relating to the offence mentioned in section 195(1)(b) or (c) may record as finding that an offence appears to have been committed to in or in relation to a proceedings in that Court and file or cause to be filed a complaint in a competent Court.
PLD 1968 Lah. 451 is relevant to it. The matter of dispute is forged document and only mentioning of section 420, P.P.C. In the F.I.R. Cannot give a jurisdiction to Court to take cognizance.) In view of the fact that alleged forged sale agreement has been produced in a civil suit filed earlier to complaint of Siraj Ahmed, the provision .Of section 195(1)(c) fully attract to the case. In the result the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of Sessions, Judge, Shikarpur are quashed. It is made clear that this order will not bar any action that may be taken by Senior Civil Judge, Shikarpur or any other judge, before whom the documents in question are taker in evidence.