' This is a petition under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. Against an order, dated 20-12-1995 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore and an order, dated 21-5-1995 passed by a learned Civil Judge 1st Class at Lahore. The facts and the background leading to the present petition are that Mst. Sadiqa Shafi petitioner herein owned a piece of land bearing Plot No,25-Q in Phase II of L.C.C.H.S. (Defence Society) Lahore while Naveed Anjum respondent is a contractor engaged in the business of constructing house for the owners. Mst. Sadiqa Shafi petitioner claims to have hired the services of Naveed Anjum respondent for construction of house on the abovesaid plot and when the house in question was nearing completion, Naveed Anjum respondent raised a dispute regarding an amount of Rs,97,000 which according to him the petitioner herein, was liable to pay to him. The petitioner appears to have denied this claim as a result of which Naveed Anjum respondent on 1-4-1992, filed a suit in the Civil Court at Lahore seeking a permanent injunction against the present petitioner. This suit was accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX of the C.P.C. Praying that till the disposal of the said suit, the petitioner herein should be restrained from taking forcible possession of the said house. An interim relief in the said terms was allowed and Mst. Sadiqa Shafi petitioner was restrained from taking possession of the house in question except in accordance with the agreement between the said parties. This civil suit carried No,108 of 1992 and was filed on 1-4-1992. On 9-6-1992 Mr. M. Bilal Khan, Advocate, representing Naveed Anjum respondent appeared before the learned Civil Judge where this suit was pending; made a statement that Mst. Sadiq Shafi had taken possession of the house in question on 8-6-1992 and in the circumstances, prayed for permission to withdraw the said suit with further permission to bring a fresh suit in the matter. Through an order passed on the said date i,e, 9-6-1992, the learned Civil Judge permitted Naveed Anjum respondent to withdraw the said suit with permission to bring a fresh suit.
2. It appears that while this Suit No,108 of 1992 was still pending trial, Naveed Anjum respondent had filed another suit on 20-4-1992 bearing No,84 of 1992 against the present petitioner in the Court of another learned Civil Judge at Lahore for rendition of accounts and on an application submitted by him in the said suit, the said respondent had got another interim relief dated 21-4-1992 to the effect that Mst. Sadiqa Shafi shall not take possession of the disputed premises illegally, unlawfully and without rendering the accounts.
3. While this interim relief was still in force Naveed Anjum respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 2 and 3, read with section 151 of the C.P.C., read further with section 6 of the Contempt of Court Act of 1976 on 14-7-1992 complaining therein that in utter violation of the above-mentioned interim relief allowed to him, Mst. Sadiqa Shafi had, with the help of some other persons, taken over forcible possession of the house in question on 13-7-1992.
4. Notice was issued in this petition. Statements of various witnesses from both the sides were recorded and the learned Civil Judge thereafter dismissed this application through an order, dated 4-5-1995 holding in para. 11 of the said order that:-- ... Therefore, the statements of all the three witnesses were incorrect and a bundle of lies. No such occurrence, as alleged by the petitioner, took place nor the respondents took possession of the disputed house on 13-7-1992."
5. It does not appear from the record available before me that this order, dated 4-5-1995 passed by a learned Civil Judge at Lahore was ever challenged before any higher forum or Court.
6. On 21-5-1995 Mst. Sadiqa Shafi petitioner herein submitted an application before the same learned Civil Judge praying therein that a complaint be made to the learned Ilaqa Magistrate/concerned police station in terms of sections 195 and 476-A of the Cr.P.C. Against the respondents mentioned in the said application for having made false statements on oath and having made false averments. The said learned trial Judge dismissed this application in limine on 21-5-1995 and the operative part of the order is as under:-- "I have already given my detailed judgment, dated 4-5-1995 and do not want to make any complaint against the respondents. This petition is, thus, dismissed."
7. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Civil Judge, Mst. Sadiqa Shafi petitioner, on 25-6-1995, approached the learned Additional District Judge/Additional Sessions Judge with a petition under section 435 read with section 439-A of the Cr.P.C. This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 26-6-1995 and notice was issued to the respondents to defend themselves against the same.
However, through a detailed judgment, dated 20-12-1995, a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore dismissed the said petition. The operative part of the said judgment is as under:- "I have gone through the evidence and came to the conclusion that in the particular circumstances of the case it cannot be held beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents purgered themselves; however, there is some doubt that they might have committed purgery but a doubt however, grave it might be, cannot form basis of criminal proceedings."
8. Hence this petition.
9. The object of creating a bar on the Courts of law in the matter of taking cognizance of cases mentioned in various clauses of subsection (1) of section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Is not to screen the offenders or to save them from the punishment prescribed by law for the offence, if any, committed by them. The offences mentioned in the said provision are essentially an offence to the concerned Court of law or the concerned public servant. Therefore, the law has left it to the discretion of such a public servant or such a Court of law to decide whether the alleged offender should or should not be prosecuted and consequently punished for the alleged offence committed by any such person. Needless to add that this discretion has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. In the present case through his order, dated 4-5-1995 above-mentioned, the learned Civil Judge had held that the statements of all the three witnesses were incorrect and a bundle of lies. He had further held that no occurrence as alleged by the present respondents had ever taken place nor had the respondents taken possession of the disputed house on the day and in the manner alleged by the said respondents. Having thus, reached a firm and final conclusion that all the three witnesses had falsely deposed that the present petitioner had taken forcible possession of the house in question on 13-7-1992, rather strong reasons were required to refuse to punish or to prosecute the said witnesses. Surprisingly the said learned Civil Judge dismissed the present petitioner's application praying for initiation of action and prosecution against the said witnesses by merely saying 'that he did not want to make any complaint against the said witnesses'. This was obviously a discretion exercised whimsically and arbitrarily by the said learned trial Judge as having held that the three witnesses had made false statements on oath, he did not offer any reason not to punish them or to seek punishment for them.
10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who had passed the judgment, dated 20-12-1995 was, however, of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case in question, it could not be held beyond reasonable doubt that the witnesses in question had purgered themselves although he was of the view that there was some doubt that these witnesses might have committed purgery.
How this doubt had crept into the mind of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not clear either from his judgment or from the record. It may be mentioned here that neither Naveed Anjum respondent nor anyone else had challenged the said order, dated 4-5-1995 which had consequently attained finality. The reasons which had weighed with the learned trial Judge in dismissing the said contempt application were not open to any exception.
11. Making of false statements before the Courts of law is a rather serious matter which very strongly interferes with and obstructs with the administration of justice. This offence is attaining alarming dimensions and unless this trend and practice was discouraged and dealt with an iron hand, the exercise of administration of justice was liable to be reduced to a mere farce. The provisions of sections 476 and 476-A of the Cr.P.C. Or other similar and relevant provisions have been put in Statute books not merely for decorative purpose but with a definite object to ensure that the stream of justice does not become pregnant with impurities. It should only be rather strong and compelling reasons which could persuade the learned Courts of law not to proceed against witnesses and persons who perjure themselves before Courts of law.
12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, as has been noticed above, three respondents herein were found to have made statements on oath before a Court of law which had been found to be false and incorrect. No reason thus, existed and none has been shown to exist even before me which could be considered sufficient to spare them of their liability to be prosecuted for having conducted themselves in the above-noticed manner.
13. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgments/orders, dated 20-12-1995 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore and dated 21-5-1995 passed by a learned Civil Judge 1st Class at Lahore are set aside and the learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with the matter in terms of section 476 or section 476-A or section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.