' Through this Constitutional petition Abdul Jabbar son of Khushi Muhammad of Chak No,6/GD, Tehsil and District Okara, seeks quashment of F.I.R. No,80 of 1997 registered against him under section 420/468/471/506, P.P.C., at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore.
2. The facts as alleged by the petitioner, briefly, are that he had been holding a piece of land measuring 2 acres, 5 Kanals as tenant of respondents Nos.3 and 4 as a lessee during the year 1996.
Respondents No,3 and 4 (hereinafter to be referred as owners of the land) agreed to sell the land to him for a sum of Rs,1,40,000. They received an amount of Rs,50,000 as the earnest money and it was stipulated between the parties that sale-deed shall be executed on 25-5-1996 after receipt of remaining sale price of Rs,90,000. When approached the owners refused to abide by their commitment and the petitioner was obliged to file a suit for specific performance on 12-12-1996. In the suit a stay order has been issued restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property and causing interference in his possession. Subsequently, respondent No,4 got the aforesaid F.I.R.
Registered against the petitioner alleging that forged agreement to sell had been prepared by the petitioner. After giving this background, the petitioner has sought quashment of the F.I.R., chiefly on the grounds that during the pendency of the civil suit, no case can be registered and it is only the Court seized of the matter which is competent to initiate criminal proceedings against him if the document relied upon by him is proved to be forged; that the case has been maliciously registered by the police being in league with the first informant.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in presence of litigation in the Civil Court which is the final arbiter for adjudication of civil rights of the people, no criminal proceedings can be initiated. In support of his contention he has relied mainly on an unpublished judgment passed in Muhammad Nawaz v. The State etc. I.-C.A. No,179 of 1994.
4. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Points out that the document is a sheer forgery by the tenant who wants to deprive the owners of their land by misrepresentation and fraud. In fact rent for a few months was due from him and proceedings for recovery of the rent were launched against him before the Revenue Court. As for registration of the case, it has been contended that there is no legal bar for the respondents to initiate criminal proceedings as the alleged forgery has not taken place during pendency of the proceedings of civil suit.
5. Arguments have been heard from both the sides at length.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be untenable because to hold that it is only the Court seized of the case which in its discretion can launch criminal proceedings when it comes to the conclusion that forgery has indeed been committed, can never be the intention of law. Civil litigation invariably takes very long time and initiation of criminal proceedings with such a delay stands frustrated. The offences about which the Court alone, to the exclusion of the aggrieved private parties, is entitled to complain may, therefore, be appropriately considered to be only those offences committed by a party to a proceeding in that Court, the commission of which has a reasonably close nexus with the proceedings in that Court. The Select Committee which drafted section 195 of Cr.P.C. While stating the purpose behind this enactment recorded: "In short, section 195 now deals with limitations that exist to the cognizance of offences by a Court.
While if a Court before whom an offence mentioned in section 195 is committed wants to take action against the delinquent, it can only proceed under section 476."
' This shows that section 195 applies to only those cases that have close nexus between the offence and the proceedings. In other words it contemplates cases of tampering with the documents on the record of a Court or cases of previously forged documents being used as genuine in certain proceedings.
7. As for the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it can be seen on the face of it, those circumstances of that case were totally different and by no stretch of imagination the ratio of that case can be applied to this case. The facts of that case, briefly, were that respondent got registered a case at Police Station Tandlianwala on 24-1-1994 against the appellant his brother and father under section 406, P.P.C. With the allegation that he had entrusted golden ornaments weighing over 16 Tolas to them a few years back and on demand he could only return ornaments weighing 5 Tolas. Obviously, the remaining ornaments were misappropriated.
After registration of the case, accused sought quashment of the F.I.R. Through writ petition which was dismissed but the appeal was admitted to regular hearing presumably on the grounds that the civil suit filed for recovery of the jewellery in question had been dismissed and the question as to whether, in the circumstances, the F.I.R. Which was lodged after 10 years of the alleged occurrence, merited to be quashed required consideration. The Court indeed quashed the F.I.R. On, inter alia, the grounds that the suit instituted by the first informant on the same subject was dismissed on failure of the plaintiff to produce evidence in support of his claim despite grant of number of opportunities to him; the registration of the case was held to be mala fide and calculated only to harass and pressurize the appellate i,e, the accused person; the Investigator of the case came to the conclusion that criminal case was false. However, at the instance of the complainant, the investigation was transferred before whom he failed to turn up. When the first informant was questioned by the Court as to why did he take further four years before approaching the police for getting the criminal case registered, he failed to give any satisfactory answer. The Court, thus, after considering all aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that the F.I.R. Was based on malice.
8. But in this case the circumstances are entirely different. It is the petitioner who has filed the civil suit on the basis of documents not scribed by a regular scriber of the Court but from a private person in his own village and that too on a simple paper. It is, also note-worthy that in the document it is claimed that the contract was entered into for a sum of Rs,1,40,000 out of which he had paid Rs,50,000 and the remaining Rs,90,000 had to be paid to the vendors at the time of execution of the sale-deed whereas in the plaint, copy of which is on the file, it has been stated that sum of Rs,15,000, the lease money, which had been paid in advance to the vendors had also to be deducted and consequently a sum of Rs,75,000 remained to be paid to the vendors. Respondents have totally denied execution of any sale-deed and receipt of any earnest money. According to them this is sheer fraud which is being played on them to deprive them of their valuable land the price of which is more than Rs,5 lacs. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on 1974 PCr.LJ 541 (Lahore) and PLD 1992 Lah.
178. In both these cases their Lordships were pleased to hold that two independent remedies were available to a person wronged in such a case and they both can be availed of simultaneously. In Muhammad Shaft's case PLD 1992 Lah. 178 Full Bench of this Court discussed this point very extensively indeed. Their Lordships examined the view supporting the prosecution, despite the pendency of civil suit and so also the contrary view in minute details and came to the conclusion that the bar only related to those cases which have close nexus between the offences and proceeding of the civil case. It would be instructive to refer to the exact wordings of their Lordships:- "Now can it be said that the offence of forgery was against the administration of justice in a case in which the offence was committed. Say, ten or twenty years before the suit in which the forged document was produced or given in evidence? The answer must obviously be in the negative. The forger must have, before the suit, used the forged document on a number of occasions in deceiving a number of persons, and when his fraud and forgery came to light and the real owner or the persons defrauded were preparing to take criminal proceedings, he hit upon the clever device of instituting a civil suit and producing the forged document in the civil suit. He would, then, on the view contended for by the petitioner, be able to say: "Well, I have produced the document in the Civil Court, you have to wait till that Court has finally decided the genuineness or otherwise of the document, for unless that is done that Court will not be in a position to say whether an offence of forgery was committed or not and to lodge a complaint under section 195.' Unfortunately, civil suits usually take very long time to decide and in practical terms, it may amount to completely defeating the ends of justice. On this view, therefore, the Civil Courts will become a place for the protection of criminals. This obviously could not have been the intention of the law. The cause of action for proceedings against the forger arose immediately when the offence of forgery as defined in section 463 of the P.P.C. Was committed. The commission of that offence was not only intended to deprive the real owner of his property but had also enabled the forger to deceive others and to deprive them of money. No proceedings were pending in any Court at that time.
There was, therefore, no question of the offence, at the date of its commission. Being against the Court or the administration of justice; nor did it, then, in any way sully the proceedings of the Court, for none were pending."
9. Following the dictum laid down in the aforereferred authority, it is held that there are no grounds for quashing the F.I.R. In this case. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the police is directed to proceed with the investigation fairly and properly. 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.