2020 PLP 414 (SCMR)

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.

This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 18.07.20.16 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby the learned Single Judge in its chambers allowed the appeal filed by the respondents, set aside the order dated 27.07.2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar acquitting the petitioner and sent the case back to the trial Court for proceeding against him for the offences except those mentioned in section 195(1)(b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

2. Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that where offences enumerated in section 195(1)(a), (b) and (c) can not be taken cognizance of by the trial Court unless a complaint in writing has been made by the Court where a forged document was produced or some other Court to which such Court is subordinate,. the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any error by acquitting the petitioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned judgment being against the letter and spirit of section 195, Cr.P.C. cannot be maintained.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State contended that the petitioner has prima facie committed the offences enumerated in section 195(1)(b) and (c) no court could take cognizance of the case unless a complaint in writing by the Court concerned or the Court to which such Court is subordinate is made.

4. We have gone through the record and considered the submissions of the learned ASCs. The record reveals that the petitioner by using forged documents during proceedings before the Family Court has prima facie committed offences enumerated in section 195(1)(b) and (c), Cr.P.C. A case was registered against the petitioner under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 208, 406 and 193, P.P.C. and forwarded to the Trial Court for trial but the trial Court could not take cognizance of the offences as complaint in writing by the Court concerned or the Court to which such Court is subordinate was not made. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while deciding the appeal in this case could have directed the Family Court where the forged document was used in evidence, to file a complaint in writing in respect of the offences committed, before the Court of competent jurisdiction. But he, for the reason best known to him, opted to remand the case to the Trial Court for proceeding against the accused for offences other than those mentioned in section 195, Cr.P.C. Remand of the case for proceeding with the trial of the offences which were neither made out nor committed by the petitioner was absolutely unjustified as it was not a trial for the heck of it but a trial for the offences committed during the proceedings before the Family Court. If the Trial Court could not take cognizance of the case for want of proper complaint for the offences committed, proper complaint was the remedy. Resumption of the trial on remand of the case for the offences not committed would be nothing but mockery of law and travesty of justice which cannot be allowed under any circumstances. Let the things be done in accordance with the requirements of law. Shortcuts would not only complicate the matter but also enable the accused to escape the punishment in the offences he committed. We thus do not feel persuaded to maintain the impugned judgment.

5. For the reasons stated above, we convert this petition into an appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned judgment by holding that the trial Court in view of the provisions contained in section 195(1)(b) and (c), Cr.P.C. could not take cognizance of the matter. However, we direct the Family Court to file a compliant against the petitioner in accordance with provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. for the offences alleged to have been committed by him. MWA/N-18/SC Petition allowed.