Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13‑Q of 1986, heard on 2nd February, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.468 & 471‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Mutation in respect of which offences allegedly committed already produced by parties in proceedings of their suits before Civil Judge, and suit decreed in favour of petitioners before registration of criminal case, pending before Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption‑‑Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, held, was restrained from taking cognizance of offence under 5.468 471, P.P.C. in circumstances‑‑Proceedings quashed.

Dr. A. Basit for Petitioners.

Sharif Butt for the State.

Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1986.

This is an application for quashment of proceedings under sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against Mst. Rehmat Bibi and 4 others, petitioner: Nos. 1 to 5 pending before Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are that Mutation No. 802 of sale of land measuring 28 Kanals and 9 Marlas situated village Sumbla, District Gujranwala by Mst. Sakina Bibi, respondent No.3, in favour of Mst. Khurshid Bibi petitioner No.2 was sanctioned on 14‑1‑1980. The allegations are that this mutation was got sanctioned by the petitioners fraudulently and collusively through fraud, forgery and impersonation and that neither Mst. Sakina Bibi had appeared before the Naib‑Tehsildar nor did she thumb‑marked the mutation proceedings. On the application of Mst. Sakina Bibi case under sections 409, 420, 468 & 471, P.P.C. and section 5(2)47 was registered at P.S. Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Gujranwala on 16‑9‑1983. After investigation, the challan was submitted before the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that before the registration of the case against the petitioners, the alleged forged mutation had been produced in a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, therefore, the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption could take the cognizance only on the complaint filed by the Civil Court and that he should not have taken the cognizance of the case on the challan submitted by the police. The learned counsel further submitted that since there is a decree passed by the civil Court restraining Mst. Sakina Bibi from challenging the validity of Mutation No. 802, dated 14‑1‑1980 and the same still holds the field, therefore, there was no legal foundation for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. He maintained that the learned Special Judge was quite competent to initiate proceedings against the petitioners on receiving the challan.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the parties are closely related. Mst. Khurshid Bibi and Mst. Rehmat Bibi respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are stepsister and stepmother respectively of Mst. Sakina Bibi complainant and that there is a dispute between the members of the same family with regard to the transfer of land. On 14‑6‑1980, Mst. Sakina Bibi complainant filed suit against Mst. Rehmat Bibi and Mst. Khurshid Bibi petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration that Mutation No. 802, dated 14‑1‑1980 was got sanctioned in favour of Mst. Khurshid Bibi through fraud and forgery and as such was illegal, void and ineffective against her rights. On the other hand, Mst. Khurshid Bibi petitioner filed suit for declaration on 5‑6‑1980 that she was owner in occupation of the land transferred to her through Mutation No. 802. She also requested that Mst. Sakina Bibi be restrained from interfering with her rights. The suit filed by Mst. Sakina was dismissed and the suit filed by Mst. Khurshid Bibi was decreed on 30‑11‑1980. The alleged forged mutation, the basis for the prosecution of the petitioner, was produced in proceedings before the civil Court before the registration of .the present case. Since the offences have allegedly been committed ins respect of the Mutation No. 802 which had already be‑en produced b6F the parties in proceedings of their suits before the learned Civil Judge, therefore, I am of the view that the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption was restrained from taking cognizance of the offences under sections 468 and 471, P. P. C. As far the other offences I feel that the allegations accepted at its face value, no case punishable under those sections is made out against the petitioners, inasmuch as, there is no evidence of any entrustment, or criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust and cheating within the definition of sections 405 and 415, P.P.C. against them. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the proceedings against the petitioners amount to an abuse of tile process of Court.

5. For what has been said above, the petition is accepted and the proceedings against the petitioners before the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption are, hereby quashed.

S.G.D. 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.