' Briefly the facts are that Mst. Allah Rakhi is owner of land measuring 71 Kanals, 9 Marlas. She is alleged to have entered into an. Agreement, dated 3-1-1995 with Ashiq Hussain, Muhammad Iqbal, Ghulam Bari sons of Hasham Ali, Abdul Hameed, Abdul Hafeez and Ijaz Ahmed sons of Hatim Ali for a sum of Rs,9 lacs and received Rs,7 lacs in presence of marginal witnesses Muhammad Sanaullah and Fateh Muhammad. The possession of said land is said to have been delivered to the vendees.
The vendees requested the vendor to accept the remaining amount of Rs,2 lacs and mutate land in their favour to which she did not agree. Hence the vendees had to institute a suit for specific performance against Mst. Allah Rakhi and her son Nazir Ahmed on 17-12-1995. An application for temporary injunction was also moved in the said suit which was granted vide order, dated 8-4- 1996. While the civil suit was pending in the Civil Court, a criminal case vide F.I.R. No,183 of 1996 was got registered against the vendees and others under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. At the instance of Nazir Ahmed son of Mst. Allah Rakhi alleging that vendees/petitioners have fabricated agreement, dated 3-1-1995, to deprive his mother of her land mentioned therein with the collusion and assistance of others. He alleged in the F.I.R., that alleged agreement to sell is dated 3-1-1995, but it contains the number of Identity Card of his mother 353-35-522454 which was issued on 15- 5-1995. He further alleged that the accused named therein have fabricated the document and be dealt with in accordance with law.
2. The present writ petition as well as Writ Petition No,3257 of 1996/BWP have been filed for the quashment of case vide F.I.R. No,183 of 1996 lodged at Police Station Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar. As both these writ petitions arise out of same F.I.R, so these are being disposed of by this single order.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. The only point agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, as a civil suit on the basis of agreement to sell, dated 3-1-1995 is pending in the Civil Court, so no criminal case in respect of that document can be registered by any private individual except by the concerned Court, as required by section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. In support of their stand, reliance has been placed on Muhammad Yaqub v. S.H.O. Etc. 1997 M LD 2097.
5. Conversely, it is argued that section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Is no bar for initiating criminal proceedings in respect of a document, which is subject-matter of a civil litigation. Reliance has been placed on Aabid A. Butt v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 22, Ahmed Bin Saleem v. The State and 3 others 1990 PCr.LJ 838, Akhtar Hussain Zaidi v. The State PLD 1985 Lah. 662 and Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Malik Gul Nawaz), Narowal and 5 others PLD 1992 Lah.
178.
6. Admittedly, petitioners have filed a suit for specific performance of agreement against Mst. Allah Rakhi and Nazir Ahmed on the basis of agreement, dated 3-1-1995. Their stand is that said agreement was executed by Mst. Allah Rakhi, whereas this stand is controverted and denied by the other party. The petitioners have challenged the registration of criminal case and has sought its quashment mainly invoking the provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Section 195, in so far as relevant provides:-- 195.--- (1) "No Court shall take cognizance---
(a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code, except on 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, 210, 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; or
(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 in 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.
' Section 476. Subsection (1) provides: When any offence referred to in section 195, subsection (1), clause (b) or clause (c), has been committed in, or in relation to, a proceeding in any Civil Revenue or Criminal Court, the Court may take cognizance of the offence and try the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII."
' Section 476-A provides:--
(1) If the Court in any case considers that the person accused of any of the offences referred to in section 476, subsection (1), and committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings before it, should not be tried under that section, such Court may, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused person, as hereinbefore provided, forward the case to a Court having jurisdiction to try the case and may require security to be given for the appearance of such accused person before such Court, or, if sufficient security.Is not given, shall forward such person in custody to such Court.
(2) The Court of which a case is forwarded under this section shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused person in the manner hereinbefore provided)."
7. The stand of learned counsel for petitioners is that language of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Clearly shows that when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceedings, in any Court in ,respect of a document produced, then no complaint can be lodged except on the complaint in writing of such Court. In support of his stand, he has relied upon Muhammad Yaqub v.
S.H.O. Etc. 1997 M LD 2097. This stand of petitioners has been rebutted by the other side by relying upon authorities referred above i,e, 1995 PCr.LJ 22, 1990 PCr.LJ 838 (Karachi), PLD 1985 Lahore 662 and PLD 1992 Lahore 178. A perusal of these authorities clearly lays down the principle that mere filing of a civil suit does not bar the registration of case, if it is made.Out from the facts asserted that a criminal act has been committed. The matter in issue has been thoroughly thrashed by a Full Bench of imminent Judges and reported in PLD 1992 Lah. 178 where the question referred pertained to the interpretation of section 195, subsection (1), clause (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and were follows:-.
(i) Whether the provisions of section 195, subsection (1), clause (c) of the Cr.P.C. As regards offences described in section 463 or offences punishable under section 475 or section 476 of the P.P.C. Apply to a document which is produced or given in evidence in a suit or in any other proceeding in a Court but which had been forged before the institution of the suit or proceeding?
And
(ii) If the facts of a case attract the provisions of section 195, but no complaint has been made by the Court concerned, is the police competent to register a case and investigate it?
8. The answer to question No,1 has been given in negative. It is thus, clear that provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Are no bar for initiating criminal proceedings in respect of a document, which is the subject-matter of civil litigation.
9. It may be mentioned here that in the instant case, suit for specific performance has been instituted on the basis of an agreement alleged to have been executed by Mst. Allah Rakhi on 3-1- 1995. This so-called agreement to sell contains National Identity Card Number of Mst. Allah Rakhi, the original of which has been shown in the open Court and its photostat has been placed on record. This National Identity Card contains No,353-35-.22454 and its date of issue is 15-5-1995. The agreement to sell, dated 3-1-1995 contains number of National Identity Card of Mst. Allah Rakhi which was not in existence on 3-1-1995 and was issued on 15-5-1995. This fact alone is sufficient to create doubt about the authenticity and genuineness of said document.
10. The upshot of above discussion is that provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Are not attracted to the facts appearing in F.I.R. No,183 of 1996. Thus, I C there is no force in these writ petitions and these are dismissed.