AMANULLAH Versus STATE

ORDER

Mst. Razia Begum respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner for ejectment, from her house. The petitioner in rebuttal filed a suit against respondent No.2 seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of part of the house through agreement deed executed by Mst. Hasan Bibi (deceased) who was mother of Razia Begum, respondent. The application for ejectment and the suit for declaration were tried by the same Civil Judge. The application for ejectment was granted but the suit for declara tion filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter the respondent moved the Police for registration of case for forging the agreement by the petitioner regarding sale of the house in favour of the petitioner. A case under section 468/471/420, P.P.C. was registered. After investigation the challan was submitted to Court.

2. The petitioner moved an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure urging that as the document had been produced in Court, section 195, Cr.P.C. was attracted and no proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner unless, initiated by the trial Court. Learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that as action under section 420, P.P.C. did not fall within the domain of section 195, Cr.P.C. the proceedings can continue under section 420, P.P.C. Sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. were deleted.

3. The petitioner filed a revision petition which was rejected by learned additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion that proceedings under section 468 can also continue. The present petition has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings.

4. It may be mentioned here that the appeals filed by the petitioner against the orders of ejectment and the dismissal of the suit, were accepted by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The respondents have challenged the orders by way of Civil Revision No.838/82, which has been admitted to hearing. Be that as it may, for the present matter before me is whether proceedings in the case registered against the petitioner can continue or not? This petition was admitted on the ground that the case was covered by the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance in this regard was placed on Hrishikesh Dutta v. The State 1969 P Cr. L J 241 and Ch. Muhammad Roshan v. The State PLD 1978 Lah. 307. In the latter authority it has been held that in such a case proceedings cannot be bifurcated and no proceedings under section 420, P.P.C. can be taken leaving aside other sections i.e. 468 and 471, P.P.C. etc.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent (No.2) has frankly conceded that he has not been able to lay hands on a reverse view of the declarations made in Hrishikesh Dutta's case 1969 P Cr. L J 241 and Ch. Muhammad Roshan's case P L D 1978 Lah. 307. He has, however, requested that the trial Court be directed that in case of acceptance of revision petition by the High Court, he should initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I do not feel inclined to issue such a direction. However, the respondent will be at liberty to move the Court in accordance with law.

For the reasons enumerated above the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad Qureshi, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore are hereby quashed.

M.Y.H. Proceedings quashed.