MST. NAWAB BIBI AND 4 OTHERS Versus THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS

ORDER

1. Petitioner is seeking cancellation of F.I.R. No. 250, dated 7-7-1987.

2. It transpires that one Muhammad Sadiq, filed a private complain before Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Cantt. against 10 persons, including petitioners, under section 420/419/468/471/467/468/109, P.P.C. (Annex. A) alleging that one Muhammad Hussain son of Mehr Din, caste Arain, resident of Salamatpura, Lahore, died issueless leaving behind movable and immovable property; and petitioner No. 1 in conspiracy with petitioner No.3 (Halqa Patwari) got within mentioned land mutated in the name of petitioner No. 2, posing him to be son of the deceased. They also managed to withdraw certain sums of money belonging to the deceased lying in the bank; and manufactured forged documents on the basis of which got prepared forged birth certificate and I. D. card of petitioner No. 2. The Assistant Commissioner referred this complaint for preliminary report to the Ilaqa Magistrate; who opined that prima facie case under the aforereferred provisions is made out against the petitioners; while the evidence against the remaining accused persons was lacking. Petitioners were summoned by the Assistant Commissioner in whose Court the case is pending trial.

3. Subsequently a case was registered at the dictation of one Muhammad Nazir son of Ismail, caste Arain, resident of Salamatpura, Lahore, who made an application to the Mayor, Lahore Municipal Corporation for registration of a case against the petitioners for their having procured a forged birth certificate of petitioner No.2, from Lahore Municipal Corporation in connivance with the local staff, by showing him son of the deceased Muhammad Hussain, with a view to getting property of the deceased. This application was referred to the Assistant Commissioner who marked it to the respondent No.2 for necessary action; consequent to which F.I.R. No.250 dated 7-7-1997 was registered under section 420/468/471, P.P.C. (Annex. E).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that registration of the F.I.R. concerning the same offence for which complaint is already pending in the court of Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Cantt. is without lawful authority. He has placed reliance on 1979 S C )1 R 200; P L D 1968 (W.P.) Lah 570 and P L D 1962 Lah. 280.

5. I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also examined the aforereferred judgments. I am of the opinion that the legal proposition enunciated in those judgments is not attracted to facts of this case. Those judgments proceed on the premise that a Court once having taken cognizance of the matter as a complaint case, cannot refer the same to the police for proceedings under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of those judgments are wholly at variance with the case in hand. As stated earlier the complaint case is still pending before the learned Assistant Commissioner. He has not referred that case to the local police for further proceedings. Whereas the FIR has been lodged on an application of the complainant which was referred to the Assistant Commissioner, through Mayor, Lahore Municipal Corporation, in his administrative capacity; upon which he endorsed that S.H.O. should take necessary action in accordance with law; who is obliged under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to lodge the information concerning a cognizable offence.

6. Independent of the above, the subject-matter of the complaint case concerns wide variety of offences e.g. manufacturing forged documents, getting mutation sanctioned by impersonation, withdrawal of cash from the bank on the basis of forged documents, acquiring forged birth certificate and I.D. card; whereas the FIR exclusively concerns the manufacture of forged birth certificate in collusion with the Corporation employees. Therefore, the arguments of "same offence" is not relevant to this case in stricto senso.

7. For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out justifying cancellation of the F.I.R. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

8. M . A . K . / N-73/L Petition dismissed.