P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

Date of hearing : 15th April 1964. This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 2164/ 63 and 832/64.

2. Mst. Rehmat Bibi respondent filed a complaint against Muzaffar Ahmad petitioner under sections 468 and 471, P. P. C. in the Court of Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Cheema, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant sent it to Mozang Police under section 202, Cr. P. C., for enquiry and report. This petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings.

3. The allegations in the complaint are that the petitioner along with others fabricated a false association deed on behalf of Mst. Rehmat Bibi respondent and her brother Muhammad Siddique. That on the basis of the forged association deed an attempt was made by the petitioner and others to have the house, which had been transferred in favour of Mst. 12ehm:at Bibi and her brother, transferred in favour of Mst. Saadat Khanum, who is also a co‑accused with the petitioner. The petition was admitted on the following grounds:‑ (a) On the allegations made in the complaint, no case under section 420, P. P. C., is made out ; (b) that no Court can take cognizance of cases under sections 468 and 471, P. P. C., unless the complaint is filed by the competent Court before whom the forged documents are used, and that in this case, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, before whom the deed of association, which is alleged to be forged was presented, did not grant the permission to file a complaint under these sections ; and (c) that this deed of association was not acted upon at any time and the petitioner did nothing except presenting it before the Additional Settlement Commissioner and that (he had no reason to doubt the genuineness of the document when it was signed by Muhammad Siddique, a brother of the respondent.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the contentions on which the petition had been admitted. As regards conten tion (a). a perusal of the original complaint shows that section 420, P. P. C , was not mentioned in the complaint. However, section 420, P. P. C., was mentioned in the copy of this complaint which was sent to Mozang Police for investiga tion. This addition of section 420, P. P. C., is unwarranted. However, the mentioning or non‑mentioning of a section in the heading of the complaint is quite irrelevant, because after the evidence is recorded it would be at the time of the framing of the charge that the Court will decide as to what offences are made out on the evidence adduced in the complaint. This is not stage where this point can be adjudicated upon and I do not consider this to be a good ground for quashing the proceedings or even pronouncing any authoritative opinion on this point. Regarding contention (b), so far as petitioner is concerned he appeared before the Additional Settlement Commissioner as a counsel for Mst. Rehmat Bibi and in that case he is not protected under section 195 (1), Cr. P. C. The protection afforded is only to a party to any proceedings. The petitioner, who is an Advocate, and had appeared on behalf of Mst. Rehmat Bibi was not a party to the proceedings. The wordings of the section are very clear on this point. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in case of Faqir Singh v. The Crown (I L R 10 Lah. 42) remarked that there was nothing to prevent the trial of an abettor of such offences referred to in section 195 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code commit ted by a party to a proceeding in any Court without a complaint by the Court concerned under section 476, Cr. P. C. In the case of Bhag Singh v. Emperor (67 I C 833), it was held that a witness to a proceeding was not entitled to the protection under section 195 (1) (c), Cr. P. C. The last ground (c) has also no force. The allegations against the petitioner are that he fabricated a false document and on the basis of that he tried to have the house transferred in favour of Mst. Saadat Khanum, that although he was never engaged by Mst. Rehmat Bibi as a counsel but he appeared in the Court of the Additional Settlement Commissioner for Mst. Rehmat Bibi. That the deed of association was finally rejected by the Settlement Authorities, does not, in any way, diminish the criminality of the petitioner if the allegations made against him are proved during the enquiry and ultimately the trial.

5. Under section 200, Cr. P. C., as soon as a complaint is filed the Magistrate is required to record the statement of the complainant. He may, under section 202, Cr. P. C., or if he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and either inquire into the case himself or, if he is a Magistrate other than a Magistrate of the third class, direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to him, or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the com plaint. After receipt of the report he may either, if he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding dismiss the complaint under section 203, Cr. P. C., or if, in his opinion, there is sufficient ground for proceeding he may summon the accused under section 204, Cr. P. C. It is, therefore, clear that in this case the learned Magistrate was fully competent to send the case for investigation to the police officer. These petitions for quashing the proceedings have been filed at a very premature stage. The petitioner has pleaded his innocence in this petition. May be, he is so. He can establish it before the police and in that case the report would be in his favour and the learned Magistrate may not even summon him.

6. In view of what has been stated above, no case is made out for quashing the proceedings. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

7. As regards Criminal Miscellaneous No. 832/63, the learned counsel for Mst. Saadat Khanum submitted that Mst. Saadat Khanum was a party to the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities and consequently she was protected under section 195 (1) (c), Cr. P. C. Mst. Saadat Khanum is also no entitled to the protection under section 195 (1) (c), Cr. P. C. The protection is given to a party to any proceedings in any Court when it is alleged that the party bad committed such an offence in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceedings. The alleged forged document was no produced in Court by Mst. Saadat Khanum. In fact, the applica tion praying for association was on behalf of Mst. Rehmat Bibi and Muhammad Siddique. It was presented in Court by the alleged counsel of Mst. Saadat Khanum, Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad. Mst. Saadat Khanum had, at no stage, appeared as a party in those proceedings, nor she made any statement. The associa tion was not accepted by the Settlement Authorities on the ground that Muhammad Siddique who was himself an associate of Mst. Rehmat Bibi had no right to further associate with Mst. Saadat Khanum, consequently, the association deed which was produced by Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad was rejected. In those proceedings Mst. Saadat Khanum did not appear as a party. She would, no doubt, have been transferred the house in case the association deed was accepted but this does not mean that the alleged offence relates to the production of any document adjudicated in Court by Mst. Saadat Khanum or that the association deed was given in evidence by her. The proceedings are, as yet, at the stage of enquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. The accused has not yet been summoned by the learned Magistrate. It is a very prema ture stage for a prayer to exercise the extraordinary power under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. I would, therefore, dismiss this petition as well. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.