Find a Lawyer

Criminal Original No.38‑W of 1983 in Writ Petition No.601‑R of 1981, decided on 12th April, 1983.

‑‑S. 3‑‑Criminal 'Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.190 (1) (a) (c) & 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.471 & 465‑‑Filing of forged documents alongwith a writ petition‑‑No advantage was obtained by respondent by filing documents purported to be forged and writ petition was simply withdrawn to approach proper forum‑‑High Court without expressing any opinion about genuineness of documents in question disposing of petition with observation that case was not fit for initiating proceedings against respondent by High Court under Ss.471 & 465.

State v. Muhammad Shabbir 1983 P Cr.L J 2405and Ghulam Qadir v. The State (Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.19 of 1980) ref.

M. Farani, Bar‑at‑Law for Petitioner.

This is an application under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, read with sections 190 (1) (a) (c), and 561‑A, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), for initiating proceedings against respondent No.1 under section 471 read with section 465, P.P.C. (XLV of 1860).

2. M. Farani learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent earlier filed Writ Petition No.601‑R/1981 which was, however, withdrawn with a view to approach in the first instance, the Settlement Authorities for the redress of his grievance by order, dated 4‑11‑1981. It is submitted that the writ petition was accompanied by uncertified copy of the allotment order and the transfer order. Both these documents have been found to be bogus by the Settlement Authorities vide Annexures 'C' and 'E', therefore, proceedings against first respondent be ordered to be initiated under the aforesaid provisions of law. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on State v. Muhammad Shabbir 1983 P Cr. L J 2405 wherein it was held that filing of forged documents in support of the writ petition is cognizable by the High Court and punishable under sections 471 and 465, P.P.C., in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance was also placed on the unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghulam Qadir v. The State (Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.19 of 1980).

3. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar are distinguishable. In the present case, no advantage whatsoever, was obtained by respondent No.1 by filing the documents purported to be forged. He merely withdrew the writ petition with a view to approach the Settlement Authorities for the redress of his grievance.

4. Be that as it may, without ex‑pressing any opinion on the genuineness or otherwise of the aforesaid documents, this is not a fit case for initiating proceedings against respondent No.1 by this Court. This shall not, however, prejudice the right of the petitioner to avail other remedies, if available to him under the law.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

H . A . K. Order accordingly

Find a Lawyer Near You

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