Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 54-Q of 1985, decided on 8th November, 1986.

---Ss.195 & 561-A--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 467, 468 471--Quashing of proceedings-Abuse of process of Court--Accused producing copy of forged Jamabandi in Court of Magistrate--Case registered with Police on direction of Magistrate--Order of Magistrate not disclosing any offence under 5.420, P.P.C.--No complaint filed by Court in which forged document produced--Magistrate, held, was not competent to take cognizance of offence under Ss.467, 46 -& 471, P.P.C. and continuation of proceedings would, therefore, be abuse of process of Court--Proceedings quashed in circumstances.

This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for quashment of proceedings in case F.I.R. No. 426, dated 4th October 1984, under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C., Police Station Kotwali District Faisalabad, now pending in the Court of Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad.

2. The brief facts are that a case titled 'State v. Muhammad Nawaz' F.I.R. No.16 of 1979 under sectionsJD5, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C., Police Station F.I.A., Faisalabad was pending in the Court of Mr. Kanwar Azmat Ali Khan, Magistrate Section 30, Fasialabad. During the proceedings Mulazam Hussain petitioner produced a copy of Jamaband: stated to have been issued by Jafar Hussain Patwari. Prosecution Inspector F.I.A., Faisalabad moved an application under section 195/476 Cr.P.C., alleging that the copy of the aforesaid Jamabandi was forged one. The Magistrate examine Khuda Bakhsh Patwari of the Cirlce concerned who stated that the said Jamabandi was not in accordance with the revenue record and was a forged or. The Magistrate thereupon proceeded to observe that Mulazim Hussain had used a forged document knowing full well that it was forged a d thus committed an offence under section 471, P.P.C. He directed the S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali, to register a case against Mulazim Hussain under the relevant provision of law. Perusal of the file reveals that the S.H.O. discussed the matter with the P.D.S.P. and submitted a report that preparation of a false document and its use are punishable under sections 467 and 471, P.P.C. which are non-cognizable, therefore, there was no justification for the registration of a case for these offences. The Magistrate thereupon passed another order that the offences also fall "within sections 467.iB 468/471, P.P.C. which are cognizable offences". In the order it as further stated that the case may be registered under the relevant provisions of law as already mentioned. Thereupon a case under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no offence under section 420, P.P.C. is at all made out against the petitioner and in the absence of a complaint in writing made by the Court concerned, the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under sections 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. The learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert this contention.

4. The order of the Magistrate which forms the basis of the F:I.R. does not disclose the commission of any offence under section 420, P.P.C. The Magistrate was of the view that offence under section 471, P.P.C. was made out as the accused (the petitioner herein) has "used a forged document in the Court knowingly that it was a forged document." Section 195(1)(C), Cr.P.C. lays down that no Court shallC take cognizance of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 476 or section 475, P.P.C. when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceedings in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceedings, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. Admittedly, no complaint had been filed by the Court in which the alleged forged document was produced. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offences under sections 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. The continuation of the proceedings would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of Court. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the proceedings pending in the Court of Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad in case F.I.R. No. 426 dated 4th October, 1984 under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. are quashed.

S.A./M-207/L 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.