2006 PLP 1739 (MLD)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

The petitioners seek quashment of proceedings initiated by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal while exercising powers under sections 476 read with section 195, Cr.P.C., on the application of respondent No.1 that the petitioners during the pendency of the suit filed by respondent No. 1 had produced forged documents at the time of seeking leave to defend the suit.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 on 20-11-1998 filed a suit under Order XXXVII, rule 1, C.P.C. for recovery of an amount (Rs.15,00,000) on the basis of pro note executed by petitioner No.2 on 16-2-1996. The said suit was finally decided on 19-11-2001 with a direction to make good the deficiency of court-fee within one month, failing which the suit was liable to be dismissed. The said deficiency was not made good within the prescribed period of one month and the suit of respondent No. 1 was dismissed. However, Asghar Ali-respondent No.1 filed an application on 7-1-2002 for extension of limitation period which was dismissed. Against the said order, respondent No.1 preferred a revision petition which is pending in this Court. On the other hand, the petitioners also filed RFA No.107/2002 and cross-objections were also filed before his Court by respondent No.1 but subsequently the said RFA was withdrawn by the petitioners. Though the suit of respondent No. 1 was deemed to be dismissed due to non-fulfilment of pre-condition yet he filed an application under section 476, Cr.P.C. for initiation of proceeding against the petitioners under sections 468/471/420/406/193/34, P.P.C. on the ground that they had submitted forged document while submitted surety bond at the time of grant of leave to defend the suit and said proceeding started. Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No.5483 of 2003 in this Court, which was disposed of vide order, dated 18-12-2003 with the direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the proceedings within three months.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when the suit filed by the petitioners has been dismissed, no proceedings could be taken up on the miscellaneous application; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not empowered to take cognizance in the matter as all the offences are triable by the learned Magistrate and the complaint could be sent to him for trial. It is further contended that the pendency of proceedings is corum non judicie and the petitioners have not committed any offence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioners while filing surety bond at the time of leave to defend the suit submitted certain fabricated documents during the proceedings of the suit before the Court and the said Court under section 476 read with section 195, Cr.P.C. is empowered to take cognizance, hence this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the contents of this petition as well as the documents attached therewith. It is an admitted fact that suit was filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners under Order XXXVII, rule 1, C.P.C. and the petitioners moved application for leave to defend the suit which was allowed subject to filing surety bond. Petitioner No.2 submitted surety bond along with the documents which were forged one as no such documents were issued by the revenue authorities and the petitioner No.2 was not owner of the said land. He was alleged to have prepared the forged document and presented the same before the Court during the proceedings of the suit, whereupon notice was issued to the petitioners to show-cause on 2-4-2002. The petitioners have submitted the reply, who instead of proving the said documents as genuine which they had produced at the time of grant of leave to defend the suit have started delaying tactics in the disposal of the same and filed petition for quashment of proceedings on the ground that the learned trial Court was not empowered to take cognizance. Under section 476, Cr.P.C. the learned trial Court can try the case having the magisterial powers and can exercise the same while passing the sentence. The petitioners can prove their innocence before the same Court while producing the evidence. The argument of the learned counsel that since the original suit has been later on dismissed, no proceedings whatsoever can be initiated is misconceived as if any of the parties is prima facie found to be guilty of producing forged documents during the pendency of the same, the proceedings can be initiated by the same Court under section 476, Cr.P.C. irrespective of the fate of the suit.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. H.B.T./Z-130/L Petition dismissed.