' On an application moved by Mian Mahmood Ahmad, respondent, to Sub-Registrar, Lahore Cantt, under his order, case F.I.R. No,415 has been registered against Pervaiz Iqbal etc., the writ petitioners on 4-8-1992 for offences under section 468/471/419/420, P.P.C.
2. According to the averments in the writ petition and the documents referred to during the arguments, the following facts form the background of the lodging of the F.I.R.
(a) Mst. Shehnaz Akhtar wife of Mian Mahmood Ahmad, respondent No,3 was owner of 5 Kanals of land in Mehmood Booti, Lahore, under inheritance mutation dated 12-11-1979 from her father. Mian Mahmood Ahmad respondent moved application to the Registrar Cantt. And he with his endorsement sent the same to S.H.O. North Cantt. Where case F.I.R. No,415 was registered on 4-8- 1992.
(b) The case in the F.I.R. Is that Mst. Shehnaz Akhtar had not appointed anybody as her attorney except her husband Mian Mahmood Ahmad nor sold the land to anybody. A fake general power of attorney on her behalf was got registered by Mahmood Ahmad petitioner No,9 on 19-11-1989. This was got registered through Commission on 23-11-1989. On the basis of this general power of attorney Mehmood Ahmad executed special power of attorney on 26-12-1989 in favour of Pervaiz Iqbal, petitioner No,1. Under this special power of attorney Pervaiz Iqbal sold the land of Mst.
Shehnaz Akhtar to Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Ali, Waris Ali petitioners, Nos.6, 7 and 11 under separate sale-deeds. Mahmood Ahmad also executed a sale-deed of some land in favour of Pervaiz Iqbal petitioner vide registered sale-deed dated 25-3-1990 registered on 5-4-1990.
(c) Shamasuddin, petitioner No,2 and Muhammad Munk, petitioner No,3 are the attesting witnesses of the general power of attorney in favour of Mahmood Ahmad. Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Arshad petitioners Nos.4 and 5 are the attesting witnesses of sale-deed in favour of Muhammad Ali, respondent No,7. Khalid Mahmood, petitioner No,10 is the attesting witness of sale- deed in favour of Waris Ali, petitioner No,11. It is in the F.I.R. That all these petitioners in collusion had prepared the general power of attorney dated 19-11-1989 in favour of Mahmood Ahmad and then all the subsequent documents. Thus deceipt, fraud and forgery had been committed to the detriment of Mst. Shehnaz Akhtar and her husband Mian Mahmood Ahmad.
3. Mst. Shehnaz Akhtar has filed civil suit on 7-6-1992 against Pervaiz Iqbal and Mian Mahmood Ahmad writ petitioners for a declaration to the effect that the power of attorney dated 19-11-1989 registered with the Sub-Registrar dated 23-11-1989 was forged and ineffective upon her rights and the sale-deed dated 23-3-1990 registered on 5-4-1990 was also void ab initio. She has also filed another suit on 14-7-1992 against Pervaiz Iqbal, Mahmood Ahmad and Waris All writ petitioners for a declaration that the general power of attorney registered on 23-11-1989 was forged, ineffective against her rights, the subsequent special power of attorney registered on 26-12-1988 was also void and consequently the sale-deed dated 3-8-1991 was also ineffective and void against her rights. Another suit against Pervaiz Iqbal, Mahmood Ahmad and Muhammad All was filed by her on 14-7-1992, still another by her against Pervaiz Iqbal, Mahmood Ahmad and Waris All writ petitioners and yet another suit against Pervaiz Iqbal, Mahmood Ahmad and Muhammad Amin.
4. In all the above suits the alleged forged documents would come up for consideration. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has referred to Muhammad Akber v. The State and Maulvi Muhammad Yasin Khan PLD 1968 SC 281, M. Salim Khan v. The.State and 3 others 1991 P Cr. L J 285 and Zafar Ahmad v. Abdul Hakim 1989 P Cr. L J 931 to contend that in view of the provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C., criminal case could not have been registered or investigated except under the order of the Court (the Civil Court). On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents referred to Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police Narowal and 5 others, a Full Bench decision of this Court, in which after a review of all the precedent law on the subject, it has been settled that.
Section 195 ibid does not apply to cases in which forgery was committed before the institution of a suit or other proceedings in which the forged document is produced or given in evidence.
Admittedly, the alleged forged documents which are under challenge in the Civil Court came into existence before the filing of the suit. Thus, in view of the latest interpretation, the case can be registered independently of the move by the Civil Court and investigated. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Writ .