MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs STATE and 2 others

ORDER

Petitioner Muhammad Ashfaq, who is an accused in case FIR. No, 52/2010 dated 18.2.2010 under Section 420, 468, 471 and 467 PPC registered at Police Station City Duniyapur District Lodhran has moved this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 561-A Cr.P.C. for the quashment of above mentioned FIR.

2. Brief facts in order to dispose of this petition are that FIR above mentioned was registered on the statement of Rasheed Ahmad son Bashir Ahmad/Respondent No, 3 wherein he alleged that his father was Lumberdar of Chak No, 255/WB on whose death fresh proceedings for the appointment of Lumberdar were initiated wherein the accused/petitioner Muhammad Ashfaq, being one of the candidates, submitted a character certificate dated 28.7.2005 issued by Police Station City Mailsi but during its verification it was found to be forged, because four cases were found registered against him. On the said application instant FIR was registered against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that FIR could not be lodged on the complaint of a private person i,e, Respondent No, 3, as allegedly the fictitious and bogus document was produced before the Revenue Officer, under Section 195(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. It is for the concerned Court itself before whom forged document is produced, which could take action or lodge a complaint, thus it was argued that the registration of case is illegal and without lawful justification and barred by the above mentioned provision of Cr.P.C; that no evidence was collected by the I.0; that as registration of case itself is illegal, therefore, further investigation is a futile exercise and it be quashed. Relies on PLD 1992 Lahore 178 (Muhammad Shafi Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Malik Gul Nawaz), Narowal and 5 others) and 1999 MLD 2243 (Mahabat Khan and 5 others Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police and 5 others).

4. On the other hand, learned DPG, however, conceded the points agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Under Section 195(1)(C) Cr.P.C. it is specifically provided as under:--

195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants: Prosecution for certain offences against public justice: Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence.--(1) No Court shall take cognizance:

(a) --------

(b) --------

(c) of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.

Admittedly according to the FIR, it is alleged that forged document was used by the petitioner- accused in proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, whereby appointment of Lumberdar was being considered. Under sub-section (2) of Section 195, ibid, the term "Court" includes a Civil Revenue or Criminal. Court but does not include a Registrar or Sub Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908. Admittedly, the proceedings were pending before a Revenue Court and under sub- section (1)(c) no Court can take cognizance of any such offence as described in Section 463 i,e, forgery or punishable under Section 471 PPC, meaning thereby the use of forged document as genuine, except on the complaint lodged by the Court concerned. The word complaint has been defined in Section 4(h) of the Cr.P.C., which is reproduced as under:

(h) "Complaint". "Complaint means the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include the reports of a police-officer."

Therefore, if the FIR above mentioned is seen it is initiated by. Rasheed Ahmad a rival candidate for the appointment of Lamberdar. Admittedly, the alleged forged document was submitted before the Revenue Court, therefore, in view of above mentioned provision of the Cr.P.C. the complaint could only be lodged by the Presiding Officer of said Court or any superior officer to whom he was subordinate. The FIR lodged by Rasheed Ahmad respondent and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted by the I.O. on the basis of which the learned trial Court/magistrate is to take cognizance thus does not fall within the definition of complaint, which is the intention of law, therefore, registration of this case itself is illegal and thus. all the subsequent proceedings taken, in this scenario will amount to continuation of illegality. Under these circumstances, FIR. No, 52/2010 dated 18.2.2010 under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 467 PPC registered at Police Station Duniyapur District Lodhran, is hereby quashed. Disposed of.