1999 P Cr (PLP)

SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.‑‑‑ This appeal has been preferred against the order of the High Court, dated 10‑5‑1997, whereby the revision petition filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a suit for possession was filed by the appellant against one Muhammad Ashraf, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, in the Court of Sub‑Judge, Rawalakot, Abdul Rashid, appellant herein, made an application during the pendency of the suit that a forgery has been committed in the contents of the agreement which pertains to the suit land and is entered in the register of petition writer, so as to damage his suit. Thus, he prayed for initiating the legal proceedings against the defendants‑respondents. The trial Court vide its order, dated 17‑8‑1996, passed an order in terms that the application should be returned to the plaintiff for presenting it to the proper forum. A revision petition was preferred to the High Court challenging the order of the trial Court which was dismissed observing that the order of the trial Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

3. Sardar Abdul Hamid Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the order of the Court below is violative of law. He has referred to section 195(I~(c) of Code of Criminal Procedure and section 476, Cr.P.C. and has submitted that as the contents of the relevant agreement were to be tendered in evidence, the matter relates to the proceedings of the Court and, thus, only the Sub‑Judge could file a complaint as envisaged under section 476, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has argued that instead of holding an inquiry as to whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to take cognizance of the matter or not, the trial Court directed the plaintiff‑appellant to seek the redress of his grievance from proper forum. The Courts below have overlooked the fact that no proceedings can be initiated by the appellant in any other forum in view of the contents of section 476, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has also cited a case reported as Sarwar Begum v. Ali Muhammad PLD 1981 SC (AJ&K) 1 in support of his contentions.

4. Sardar Shamshad Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents, has controverted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant contending that as the forgery, if any, might have been committed when the register was not in the custody of the trial Court but was in record room, it cannot be said that the matter related to the proceedings in the Court. Thus, according to the learned counsel, it was not necessary for the Court to proceed under section 476, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has also argued that as the trial Court has to resolve the question of genuineness of the contents of the relevant document contained in the register of petition writer, the proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted at this stage.

5. We have given our due consideration to the matter. Irrespective of the validity of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, the relevant orders of the Courts below show that the provisions of section

476. Cr.P.C., have not been adverted to at all and no reason was given for passing the impugned orders. The provisions of sections 195, Cr.P.C. and 476, Cr.P.C postulate that if any of the offences envisaged in section 195, Cr.P.C. is alleged to have been committed, the concerned Court should proceed under section

476. Cr.P.C. If the Court concerned after the inquiry or otherwise, comes to the conclusion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to proceed in the matter, a, complaint has to be made as envisaged under the aforesaid provisions. The question as to whether it is expedient to file a complaint is to be resolved by the Court concerned. Thus, in view of the allegation levelled by the appellant in his application the impugned orders of the trial Court and the High Court are not sustainable.

6. In the light of what has been stated above, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders. Therefore, we remand the case to the trial Court to consider the application made by the appellant in the light of the above discussion and decide the matter according to law. The appeal stands accepted as indicated above. H.B.T./56/SC(AJK)???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded