PLJ 2022 Lahore 315 (DB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 22-A & 22-B--Law Reforms Ordinance, (XII of 1972), S. 3--Producing of document during trial of Civil suit--Application for registration of case--Declined--Writ petition--Direction to recording of statement of Respondent No. 3--Determination of sanctity of document--Challenge to--If any document is produced during course of trial proceedings and at time of conclusion of trial, such Court arrives at conclusion that document produced before it was forged, it could take cognizance of matter--Unless and until it is evaluated that document is forged or not, no order for registration of a case on basis of such documents should be passed--Trial Court shall determine sanctity of document in question--Appeal allowed.
[P. 316] A
Mr. Muhammad Sharif Karkhi, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Muhammad Imtiaz Hussain Marali, Assistant Advocate General for State.
Mehr Ghulam Shabbir Aheer, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing: 12.10.2021.
PLJ 2022 Lahore 315 (DB)
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Asjad Javaid Ghural and Ali Zia Bajwa, JJ.
versus
JUSTICE OF PEACE, etc.--Respondents
I.C.A. No. 311 of 2020, decided on 12.10.2021.
Order
Through the instant Intra Court Appeal filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the appellant has assailed the vires of order dated 16.11.2020, passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber by virtue of which while allowing Writ Petition No. 9750/2016 filed by Allah Ditta/Respondent No. 3, SHO, Police Station Civil Line, Dera Ghazi Khan/Respondent No. 2 was directed to record his statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. and proceed further in the matter.
2. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, as well as, learned Assistant Advocate General.
3. Perusal of record available on file reflects that during the course of proceedings of a civil suit titled ‘Muhammad Naseer etc. vs. Allah Ditta etc’ pending before learned Senior Civil Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, allegedly some documents bearing forged signatures of Mushtaq Ahmed Sandhela on the plaint were produced before the learned trial Court, who according to version of Respondent No. 3 was abroad at that time. Hence, he moved an application before learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. for registration of a case against the persons responsible for producing alleged forged documents before the learned trial Court, which was declined vide order dated 05.05.2016. The same was challenged through Writ Petition No. 9750/2016; wherein vide order dated 16.11.2020, SHO/Respondent No. 2 was directed to record statement of Respondent No. 3 under Section 154, Cr.P.C. There is no cavil to this proposition that if any document is produced during the course of trial proceedings and at the time of conclusion of trial, such Court arrives at the conclusion that document produced before it was forged, it could take cognizance of the matter. Unless and until it is evaluated that the document is forged or not, no order for registration of a case on the basis of such documents should be passed. Learned trial Court shall determine the sanctity of document in question. Thus, the order dated 16.11.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber directing Respondent No. 2 to record statement of Respondent No. 3, under Section 154, Cr.P.C., in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, is against the scheme of law on the subject, which cannot be given legal sanctity, thus, the same is accordingly set aside by declaring it void ab initio.
4. The instant Intra Court Appeal stands allowed in the above terms.
(Y.A.) Appeal allowed
0 Comments