' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for cancellation of F.I.R. No,42 of 1989 registered with Police Station North Cant. Lahore under section 468/471/420, P.P.C.
2. The relevant facts are that one Imam Din died leaving behind 3 sons namely Abdullah, Rehmat and Shadi. The complainant Muhammad Iqbal is one of the heirs of Abdullah, who had died in 1983 while the petitioner is son of Shadi, who died in 1987. The dispute pertains to the estate left by Rehmat the third brother. The complainant Muhammad Iqbal alleged in the F.I.R. That Rehmat had died on 6-3-1985 while the accused got a gift deed prepared in respect of agricultural land measuring 64 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in Mauza Sadhokey Tehsil and District Lahore on 11-3-1985 and the same was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Lahore Cantt. On 12-3-1985. This way they have committed offences under section 468/471/420, P.P.C. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Do not constitute an offence under section 463, P.P.C. As the complainant is neither an heir nor beneficiary nor anybody has been deprived of any claim in the property. It is further added that the death certificate produced by the complainant is a forged and fabricated document. Therefore, there is no legal basis. The arguments are concluded with the submission that the complainant has already filed a civil suit, therefore, criminal proceedings are misuse of the process of law and mala fide, therefore, liable to be quashed. In this behalf reliance is placed on the case of Amir etc. v. S.H.O. Police Station Jhang etc. 1988 P Cr. L J 2032.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General has argued that according to death register maintained by the Union Council, Halokey, the entry relied by the petitioner is again a fabricated one introduced in the record to boost up the defence of the petitioner. It is added that but for the disputed gift the property would have devolved on the widow and daughter of Rehmat deceased besides collaterals, therefore, the accused are guilty of forgery as defined in section 463, P.P.C. It is submitted that criminal case is against the society while civil proceedings are in respect of one's own girevance. It is submitted that section 195(3), Cr.P.C. Is not attracted in the present case. The petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. The police has found the accused including the petitioner guilty, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
There is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have moved the police for registration of case. The report in respect of a cognizable offence can be lodged by any citizen whether he has got interest in the matter or not. The other argument that alleged forged document does not affect the right of any person or cause any damage or injury to anyone. Therefore, it is not covered by definition of forgery as given in section 463, P.P.C.
Before proceeding any further it is relevant to refer to the said section. The same reads as under:-- "Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
The acts complained of clearly constitute offence under section 463, P.P.C. As the alleged forged gift deed supports claim of gift.
6. Now coming to the other argument that the complainant has produced a forged and fabricated death certificate of deceased Rehmat. Learned Additional Advocate-General has produced the relevant registers. It is clear from the same that entry in respect of Rehmat Ullah was made at serial No,82 and in accordance with the same death certificate appended with the F.I.R. Was issued. It seems that the accused after coming to know of registration of case against them decided to get another entry incorporated in the death register. The same appears at Serial No,94 but it is clearly a forged and fabricated entry because entries Nos. 92 and 93 are dated 12-1-1984 while entry No,95 is dated 11-2-1984 and the entry in dispute is dated 18-4-1985. The same has clearly been made out of order. Besides this there are cuttings in Columns Nos. 7, 8 and 9 pertaining to age, caste and place of death. In this view of the matter the respondent No,1 has been directed to register separate case in respect of interpolation in death register. This way the entry relied by the petitioner prima facie is forged and fabricated.
7. Now coming to the last argument that since the complainant has filed a civil suit, therefore, criminal proceedings are uncalled for, incompetent and misuse of process of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 195(c), Cr.P.C. This pertains to cognizance of offences committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court. The offences claimed in the F.I.R. Do not pertain to any Court, therefore, argument is misconceived.
8. The learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that the police has completed the investigation and according to which the accused has been found guilty. The challan is ready but could not be submitted on account of the order of this Court. In this view of the matter, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion and jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
9. The result is that this petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.