1986 PLP 1156 (MLD)

Messrs Muhammad Zawar Shah and Muhammad Ramzan Khalid for Petitioners. Nazir Ahmad for Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Zafar Muhammad Anjum for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 10th June, 1985. Muhammad Ramzan petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,000 allegedly advanced by him to Allah Rakha complainant respondent No.2 vide a pronote, thumb‑marked by him. While the suit was still pending, Allah Rakha on 4‑3‑1976 filed a complaint under section 465/474/506/34, P.P.C., against the present petitioners and two others in the allegation that the petitioners obtained his thumb‑impression fraudulently on the aforesaid pronote and receipt. The Magistrate vide his order dated 5‑3‑1976 referred the complaint to the police for preliminary inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. and directed the parties to appear before the S. D . P.0 . on 11‑3‑1976. The parties in compliance with the said order appeared before the S.D.P.O. However, the police found that no offence was proved to have been committed and that the parties have also effected a compromise through written agreement. Having perused this report the Magistrate in his order dated 22‑3‑1976 observing that Allah Rakha respondent had not felt satisfied, therefore, i9sued notices to the petitioners to appear before him on 1‑4‑1976. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners and two others as accused under section 465/474/506, P.P.C. through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 5, 000 on 12‑5‑1976 vide order dated 6‑5‑1976. The petitioners did not appear before the learned trial Magistrate and instead filed the instant petition for quashment.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the State assisted by learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The evidence brought on record does not disclose that any the petitioners was seen forging the pronote or the receipt on the basis of which Ramzan ‑petitioner had filed a suit against respondent No.2 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1;

000. Since Muhammad Ramzan petitioner used the said pronote said to be forged document in relation to judicial proceedings, therefore, he could‑at the most be held to be responsible for having committed an offence punishable under section 471, P. P. C., as it is not denied that both these documents were produced in the civil Court alongwith the plaint and were also exhibited. It true that the learned civil Court having found both the documents as ingenuine dismissed the suit, yet he did not file any complaint against the plaintiff Muhammad Ramzan (petitioner) for having used the forged documents knowing them to be so during judicial proceedings. According to section '195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. no Court can take cognizance of offence punishable under section 471, P.P.C. when such offence is alleged have been committed by a party to any proceedings before a Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence of such proceeding except on the complaint in writing of such Court or some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. In this case the complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 who is a private person and not by the Court concerned. In this view of the matter, the proceedings pending against the petitioners before a criminal Court on the complaint file by the respondent No.2 are absolutely incompetent and deserve to be quashed. Order accordingly. H. A. K. Proceeding quashed.