IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J.--The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for cancellation of F.I.R No. 42/89 registered with Police Station North Cantt. Lahore under sections 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 FIR 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 11.3.85 and the same was registered with the Sub Registrar Lahore Cantt. On 12.3.1985. This way they have committed offences under sections 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 petitioner in support of the petitioner has argued that the allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Does 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 of 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 malafide, therefore, liable to be quashed. In this behalf reliance is placed on the case of Amir etc. Vs. S.H.O. P.S Jhang etc (N.L.R 1988 Crl. 468).
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that according to death register maintained by the Union Council, Halokcy. The entry relied by the petitioner is again a fabricated one in 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 deceassed besides collaterals, therefore, the accused arc 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 ones own grievance. It is submitted that section 195(3) Cr.P.C is not attracted in the present case. The petitioner has not come 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 effect the right of any person or cause any damage or injury to any-one. Therefore, it is not converted 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 lo cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to ro 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 forget 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 Addl Advocate-General has produced the relevant registers. It is clear from the same that entry in respect of Rehamt Ullah was made at serial No.82 and forged 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 entry Nos.92 and 93 are dated 12.1.84 while entry No.95 is dated 11.2.1984 and the entry in dispute is dated 18.4.85. The same has clearly been made out of order.
Besides, this -there are cutting in columns No.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. They 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 Hied 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 docs 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.