Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 429 of 1985,decided on 7^th November, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 467 & 420‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 195(1)(c) & 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Accused alleged to have prepared a forged agreement relating to sale of shops of complainant‑‑Prior to filing of complaint accused had already filed a civil suit wherein he placed reliance on sale agreement, which was subject‑matter of dispute in both cases, and produced it in civil Court‑‑Section 195(1)(c), Criminal Procedure Code, held, attracted to case and entertainment of complaint barred except at ‑instance of Court, in proceedings before which Court offence was committed‑‑Proceedings pending against accused in Court of Sessions quashed in circumstances.

1981 P Cr. L J 338; 1977 P Cr. L J 546; 1984 P Cr. L J 1340 and P L D 1974 Kar. 403 ref.

‑‑‑Ss. 467 & 420‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.195(1)(c) & 561‑A‑‑Jurisdiction to take cognizance‑‑Accused challaned under Ss.467 and 420, Penal Code, but matter in dispute relating to a forged document‑‑Only mentioning of S.420, Penal Code, in first information report held, could not give a jurisdiction to Court to take cognizance Contention, that since accused had been challaned under S.467/420, Penal Code and S.420 not covered by S.195, Criminal Procedure Code, accused could not get protection of S.195(1)(c), Criminal Procedure Code, repelled.

P L D 1968 Lah. 451 rel.

Shamshuddin Shah for Petitioner.

A.A.‑G for the State.

Date of hearing: 30th October, 1985.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561‑A, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners under section, 467/420, P. P. C. in the Court of Sessions Judge, Shikarpur.

2. The facts of the case are that on the application of Siraj Ahmed a case under section 467/420. P.P.C. has been registered at the Police Station, Stuart Ganj, Shikarpur on 21‑4‑1984. After usual investigation applicants have been challaned. The allegation against the petitioner is that they prepared a forged agreement relating to sale of two shops of Siraj Ahmad.

3. Mr. Syed Shamsuddin Shah Advocate for the petitioners argued that complainant on coming to know of the civil suit moved Martial Law Authorities and got the case registered. He has submitted in view of provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr. P.C., no Court can take cognizance of any offence described in section 463 in respect of document already produced or given in evidence in proceedings. He has cited 1981 PCr.LJ 338; 1977 P Cr. L J 546; P L D 1968 Lah. 451; 1984 P Cr. L J 1340 and P L D 1974 Kar. 403.

4. Mr. Syed Zawar Hussain learned A.A.‑G. does not support the quashment. He argued that petitioners had been challaned under section 467/420. P.P.C. and according to him petitioners cannot get protection of section 195(1)(a) so far offence under section 420, P.P.C. is concerned as section is not covered.

5. F. C. Civil Suit No. 28 of 1984 has been filed by the petitioner on 4‑3‑1984 against complainant Siraj Ahmed and others which is pending. The written statement has been filed. The reliance in the civil suit has been placed on the alleged sale agreement executed by complainant Siraj Ahmed. In written statement Siraj Ahmed has staled that no such agreement was made for sale of shops. The criminal proceedings were instituted on the application, dated 10‑3‑1984 of Siraj Ahmed. The police was directed by Assistant Martial Law Administrator by an order, dated 12‑3‑1984 to register case. The case was, however, registered on 21‑4‑1984 at Police Station Stuart Ganj, Shikarpur as crime No.29/1984. It is evident that criminal case has been filed after the civil, suit. The same sale agreement is subject‑matter of dispute in both the cases. Now the question arises whether the present case instituted by the complainant is maintainable in view of the provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C.

Section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure states as follows:‑

Section 195(1). No Court shall take cognizance:‑

(a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code. except 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, 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.

(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 i.e. 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."

The provisions of section 476, Cr.P.C. are corresponding procedural provisions governing the proceedings anterior to the filing of the complaint under section 476, Cr.P.C. in any civil, revenue or criminal Court as an application, being made be it or otherwise coming to the conclusion that it is expedient and the interest of justice relating to the offence mentioned in section 195(1)(b) or (c) may record as finding that an offence appears to have been committed to in or in relation to a proceedings in that Court and file or cause to be filed a complaint in a competent Court.

In view of the provision of sections 195 and 476, Cr.P.C. it is crystal clear that if any offence as enumerated in section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in a Court such an act under section 476, Cr.P.C. and after recording a finding that offences appear to have been committed; file a complaint or direct the filing of complainant. The section 195 clearly bars the entertainment of a complaint except at the instance of the Court, in proceedings before which Court the offence is committed. So far contention of learned A.A.‑G. that section 420, P.P.C. is not covered by section 195, Cr.P.C. the case of Muhammad Ehsan v. The State reported in P L D 1968 Lah. 451 is relevant to it. The matter of dispute is forged document and only mentioning of section 420, P.P.C. in the F.I.R. cannot give a jurisdiction to Court to take cognizance.) In view of the fact that alleged forged sale agreement has been produced in a civil suit filed earlier to complaint of Siraj Ahmed, the provision .of section 195(1)(c) fully attract to the case. In the result the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of Sessions, Judge, Shikarpur are quashed. It is made clear that this order will not bar any action that may be taken by Senior Civil Judge, Shikarpur or any other judge, before whom the documents in question are taker in evidence.

M.Y.H Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.