Rizwan Ullah Versus Muhammad Din
Muhammad Naeem Anwar, J .--- This Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Sections 195 and 476, Cr.P.C, seeking directions for registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos.1 to 3 on the ground that they allegedly made false and perjured statements and affidavits before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.3, in collusion with respondent No.2, submitted an affidavit, dated 16.01.2024, before this Court, stating therein that she was the ex-wife of the petitioner. He submitted that this assertion was also made in paragraph No.12 of the plaint filed by her before the learned Family Court. However, from the order sheets dated 13.02.2025 and 17.02.2025; it is evident that she was ready to enter into a compromise with the petitioner on certain terms and conditions as his wife, thereby contradicting her earlier claim of divorce. He further submitted that a compromise deed dated 18.02.2025 was duly signed by the parties, confirming that the relationship of husband and wife continued to exist, as the petitioner even sent money to respondent No.3 on 07.06.2025 for her medical treatment. Learned counsel added that respondent No.3 subsequently filed an application for amendment of plaint at the instance of respondents Nos.1 and 2, seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage or, in the alternative, a decree for Khulla, and for declaration that she was no longer the wife of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the said statements, affidavits and declarations constitute false evidence and perjury, which, under law, can be taken cognizance of only by this Court under Sections 195 and 476 Cr.P.C. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Nadar Wali v. Sumaya Gul and another (2020 SCMR 414).
3. Arguments heard and perused.
4. The record reveals that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was solemnized in the year 2015, and out of the wedlock, two sons, namely Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Samiullah, were born. Their matrimonial life remained harmonious for some years; however, in 2019, disputes arose between the petitioner and his father-in-law (respondent No.1) over monetary issues. Consequently, respondent No.3 filed Suit No. 278/FC of 2023 before the learned Judge Family Court, Peshawar, seeking recovery of dower, maintenance for herself and the minor children, and Rs. 150,000/- as medical expenses. In paragraph No.12 of the plaint, she averred that the petitioner had, in 2013, threatened to divorce her if she was not brought back to his house within one hour, and in the presence of witnesses, he repeated words amounting to divorce. During pendency of the family suit, the petitioner moved an application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against respondents Nos.1 and 2, which was allowed by the learned Justice of Peace, Peshawar, vide order dated 23.10.2023, with a direction that the respondents shall not be arrested till completion of investigation. Aggrieved, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No.4739-P/2023 for quashment of the said order, while the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4977-P/2023 challenging the observation regarding non-arrest of respondents. During pendency of these petitions, respondent No.3 submitted an affidavit dated 16.01.2023, stating that her marriage with the petitioner took place in 2015; that while leaving Dubai, the petitioner had handed over a vehicle to her, which she sold with his consent to meet household expenses; and that due to strained relations, the petitioner had divorced her. This Court, vide consolidated judgment dated 17.01.2024, allowed Writ Petition No.4739-P/2023, declared the order dated 23.10.2023 of the Ex-Oflicio Justice of Peace to be without lawful authority and set it aside, whereas the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Later on, the petitioner instituted Writ Petition No.810-P/2025, seeking a direction to the learned Judge Family Court-II, Peshawar, to decide the family suit expeditiously. During those proceedings, this Court appointed Mr. Khalid Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court, as Mediator to reconcile the spouses, particularly in the interest of the minor children. However, the mediation failed and the petition was disposed of with direction to the Family Court for early disposal of the suit. It is, thereafter, that the present application under Sections 195 and 476, Cr.P.C. has been filed for initiating criminal proceedings against respondents Nos.1 to 3 on the ground of false statements and perjury.
5. The provisions of Section 195, Cr.P.C. create a specific bar upon the taking of cognizance of certain offences unless a competent authority makes a written complaint. The object of the section is to ensure that prosecutions concerning offences affecting the administration of justice are not instituted at the instance of private individuals. Under clause (a), offences relating to disobedience of public orders (Sections 172-188, P.P.C) may be prosecuted only upon the written complaint of the public servant concerned or his superior officer. Under clause (b), offences such as false evidence or fabrication of false documents (Sections 193-211 and 228, P.P.C) can only be made the subject of prosecution upon a complaint by the court where the offence occurred or by its superior court. Clause (c) further provides that offences relating to forgery or use of forged documents in evidence (Sections 463, 471, 475, and 476 P.P.C) must likewise originate from the concerned court or its superior court. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is an exception to the general rule that any person, having knowledge of commission of an offence, made such a law in motion by a complaint, even though he is not presently interested or affected by the offence. It mandates that no Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing required under that section. The object of this section is to protect litigants from malicious prosecutions and to maintain the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The "superior court" means the court to which an appeal would ordinarily lie from the decrees or sentences of the subordinate court. The procedure for trial of such offences is laid down under Section 476, Cr.P.C., which empowers a court to take cognizance itself of such offences committed before it and to try them in summary manner. Under Section 476-A, the court may, if it deems fit, record the facts and forward the matter to another competent court for trial.
6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was contracted in 2015, and subsequently, differences arose leading to litigation before the Family Court, where the matter of alleged divorce is still sub judice. Respondent No.3, in her plaint and affidavit, has asserted that she has been divorced by the petitioner. This Court, during the earlier writ proceedings, even made efforts for reconciliation by appointing a mediator, however, the attempt failed. Since the question of divorce and marital status of the parties is pending adjudication before the Family Court, this Court at this stage cannot determine the truth or falsity of the affidavit or statements made by respondent No.3. There is no denial to the legal proposition that all courts, including the Family Court, are empowered under Sections 195 and 476, Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of perjury committed before them. The purpose of the provisions is that whenever it appears to a court, whether through an application or otherwise, that the stated offence mentioned in section 195, appears to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in that court and the court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint should be lodged against the offending person, then it is duty bound to lodge such a complaint. These provisions act as a check against false evidence and authorize the concerned court to proceed against any person who misleads it by perjured testimony. However, in the present case, as the family suit is pending before the competent forum, it is for that Family Court to examine, in due course, the veracity of the statements and evidence produced before it. This Court cannot, at this stage, record findings regarding the alleged falsity of the affidavit or compromise deed annexed by the petitioner.
7. For the reasons discussed above, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, being without merit, is hereby dismissed.
JK/210/P Application dismissed.