1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 15-7-1978, rejecting his application (Cr. Misc. No. 365-Q of 1978) under section 561-A, Cr. P. C.
2. The facts of the case as disclosed in the F. I. R., briefly stated, are that Mst. Ghulam Fatima complainant (respondent No. 2 before us) is the daughter of Ghulam Mustafa. It is alleged that on the death of her father a mutation of inheritance was sanctioned wherein she was not shown as one of his heirs. It is further alleged that in another mutation of inheritance sanctioned on the death of her brother she too was not shown as his heir. According to her, in the mutation proceedings a woman posing herself to be her mother, Mst. Ghafoori and identified as such by Ghaus Muhammad (petitioner before us) appeared and stated that 31st. Ghulam Fatima was not her daughter. Since the complainant (MV. Ghulam Fatima) was deprived of the inheritance of her father and brother by the petitioner and others with the connivance of the Revenue authorities through fraud and forgery, she registered a case against them under sections 468 and 420, P. P. C.
3. The petitioner filed a quashment petition before the High Court wherein it was submitted, firstly, that on the basis of the F. I. R. As lodged and the statements of the witnesses under section 16i, Cr. P.
4. C. No case under section 420, P. P. C. Was made out and, secondly, that the cognizance of the case under section 468, P. P. C. Could not be taken by the Magistrate since there was no complaint by the Presiding Officer of the Revenue Court, before whom the offence had allegedly been committed.
5. The High Court dismissed the petition on the short ground that as the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that earlier two quashment petitions filed by his co-accused had been dismissed by the High Court, he had not come to the Court with clean hands. However, so far as the first contention was concerned, the learned Judge observed that no case, in the circumstances, under section 420, P. P. C. Was made out in view of the pronouncement of this Court in Thari v. Muhammad (PLD1973SC619). So far as the second contention was concerned, it was held that the proceedings before the Revenue Officer were not proceedings before the Revenue Court hence the provisions of section 195 (1)(c) requiring the filing of a complaint by the Presiding Officer were not attracted.
6. Before us the same argument has been repeated, namely, that since the alleged offence was committed during the course of proceedings conducted by a Court the cognizance by the Magistrate could only be taken on the complaint of that Court and not on the basis of the challan based on Mst. Ghulam Fatima's statement.
7. We have given to this contention our anxious consideration and find no force in it. Section 195 (1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the following terms :--- "195.-(1) No Court shall take cognizance---- (a)----------------------------------
(b) ----------------------------------
(c) of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under sec--petition 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."
8. It is quite clear to us that a Revenue Officer while dealing with mutation proceedings is not functioning as a revenue Court. Consequently, any offence committed before him is not an offence committed before the Court) so as to attract the provisions of section 195 (1)(c) of the Cr. P. C. In this view of the matter no ground exists for our interference in this matter.
9. The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed hereby.