Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 191 of 1968, decided on 7th May 1969.
read with 195(1) (c)-Offence of forgery alleged to have been committed in proceedings before Civil Court--Cognizance of offence barred except on complaint of such Court.
Waseem Sajjad for Petitioner.
Malik Muhammad Jofar for the State.
Ihsan-ul-Haq for the Complainant.
Manzoor Ahmad, Mst. Mahmoona Begum alias Riaz Begum and Meraj Din, have filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C., praying this Court to quash the criminal proceedings under sections 420, 468, 406, 467, 471 and 479, P. P. C., pending against them in the Court of Ch. Imtiaz Ali Sahi, Magistrate First Class, Multan.
2. The facts are these. A will deed dated 10th April 1946, vas filed in Civil Suit No. 156, Allah Wasaya v. Manzoor Ahmad, decided by the Senior Civil Judge, Multan, on 26th March, 1959. After the decision of the aforesaid suit, the file was sent to the District Record Room. Later on, Sh. Muzaffar-ud-Din, filed an application under section 476, Cr. P. C., in the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Multan, alleging therein that Manzoor Ahmad in league with certain officials of the Court of the Administrative Civil Judge, Multan, had tampered with the original will during the pendency of the case, whereupon the original file No. 156 was sent for from the Record Room. n this connection, enquiries were made by the Administrative Civil Judge and the District Magistrate, Multan, to fix responsibility. As a result of the enquiry, the Administrative Civil Judge reported that the allegations made by the complainant have not been substantiated and were not well-founded. A pseudonymous complaint on the identical allegations was received in the office of this Court, whereupon the then Chief Justice by his order dated the 1st of March 1951, sent for a report from the District and Sessions Judge, Multan. On receipt of the report the then Administrative Judge (S. A. Mahmood, J.) on the administrative side ordered on 8th March 1963, that the matter of forgery being serious it should be reported to the Special Police Establishment (Anti-Corruption Department) as well as to the local police, for necessary action. In pursuance of the said order, the District and Sessions Judge, Multan, addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (Anti-Corruption Department), Bahawalpur, asking for necessary action. A copy of that letter was also sent to the Superintendent of Police, Multan. In pursuance of this complaint, the police investigated the case and put in the challan against the petitioners in the Court of Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad Sahi, Magistrate, First Calss, Multan.
3. Mr. Wasim Sajjad, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that accounting to the prosecution the will-deed in Civil Suit No. 156 was tampered with in the course of proceedings and this was an offence which could be taken cognizance of on the complaint in writing by a Court where such off nee is alleged to have been committed. He further argues that the learned Administrative Civil Judge did not deem it fit to lodge the complaint after holding enquiry as required under section 476, Cr. P. C., and that the order of this Court on the administrative side cannot override the mandatory provisions of sections 195 and 476, Cr. P. C.
4. In the instant case, as would appear from the facts detailed earlier, the offence, if any, would have been committed in relation to the proceedings in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Multan, before whom the will was filed in Civil Suit No.156. The Administrative Civil Judge held an enquiry under section 476, Cr. P. C., on the application of Sh. Muzaffar-ud-Din and after examining the evidence, thought 'hat it was not a fit case for lodging a complaint. The complaint was lodged under the order of this Court on the administrative side. In view of the mandatory provisions of section 195,Cr. P. C., there is a bar to the taking of cognizance of the offences mentioned in that section except upon a complaint in writing of the Court concerned, which was not done in the instant case. Therefore, all the action is lost and the proceedings must be held to be incompetent.
5. For the reasons given above, I accept this petition and quash the whole proceedings taken against the petitioners.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer