Ch. FEROZE DIN vs DR. K. M. MUNIR AND ANOTHER
This matter arises from criminal petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for lodging a complaint against the respondents for allegedly using forged allotment orders during proceedings. The core legal question concerns the propriety of initiating collateral criminal proceedings for alleged forgery while the main dispute regarding the transfer of an evacuee building is pending remand before the Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to initiate criminal proceedings, as prosecution under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not a matter of course and should not be used as an instrument for private vengeance or to hamper the main issue. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings in respect of offences committed in judicial proceedings must be strictly in the public interest and should not be permitted to be weaponized for private grudges.
- Whether prosecution under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be launched as a matter of course for every offence alleged to have been committed in judicial proceedings?
- Can an application for lodging a complaint for forgery be used by a party to wreak private vengeance or satisfy a private grudge?
- Is it appropriate to start collateral criminal proceedings that would hamper the main issue pending before a Settlement Commissioner?
- Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 98, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1962
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This order will dispose of Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 30 and 31 of 1969, which are directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, whereby the petitioner's application under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code for lodging complaint against the respondents for their having made use of certain orders of allotment during the proceedings in the Court, which were allegedly forged, has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner and the respondents are rival contestants for transfer of an evacuee building situated in Gandhi Square, Lahore. The dispute was ultimately brought in the High Court under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution and in the result it was remanded back to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh consideration of the claims of all the contending parties.
3. The High Court has declined to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondents as prayed for by the petitioner on the ground that it was inappropriate to start collateral proceedings which would hamper -the main issue to be decided by the Settlement Commissioner, viz. The respective entitlements of the parties to the transfer of the disputed property.
4. Under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, prosecution is not to be launched as a matter of course for any and every offence alleged to have been committed in the course of judicial proceedings. A necessary requirement for such an A action is that it must be taken in public interest and riot allowed to be used as a handle in the hand of one party to wreak a private vengeance or satisfy a private grudge against the other party.
5. In the present case it cannot be said that the High Court in rejecting the petitioner's application has exercised its discretion arbitrarily to justify interference by this Court.