2025 P Cr. L J 1983
ملزم کے جسمانی ریمانڈ کی درخواست کو ٹھکرا دیا گیا اور اسے فارغ کر دیا گیا- - جوڈیشل مجسٹریٹ نے ملزم کو اس بنیاد پر بری کر دیا کہ معاملہ سول فریقوں کے درمیان عدالت میں زیر سماعت تھا ، جہاں مبینہ دستاویز کو حکم امتناع حاصل کرنے کے لیے استعمال کیا گیا تھا ۔ عدالت S.195 ، سی آر پی سی کے تحت آگے بڑھنے کے قابل فورم ہے ، اگر دستاویز کو غلط اور فرضی پایا جاتا ہے-- - نجی شخص کو S.195 ، سی آر پی سی کے ذریعہ اس سلسلے میں کوئی شکایت کرنے سے منع کیا گیا ہے-- - دونوں کارروائیوں میں درکار ثبوت کا معیار بالکل مختلف ہے-- - سول مقدمات کا فیصلہ شواہد کی اہمیت پر کیا جاتا ہے ، جبکہ فوجداری مقدمے میں ، پورا بوجھ استغاثہ پر پڑتا ہے اور معقول شک سے بالاتر ثبوت دیا جانا چاہئے---اس کے علاوہ ، نہ تو کوئی قانونی شق ہے اور نہ ہی کوئی قانونی اصول ہے کہ ایک کارروائی میں ریکارڈ کیے گئے نتائج کو دوسرے میں حتمی یا پابند سمجھا جاسکتا ہے ، کیونکہ دونوں مقدمات کا فیصلہ اس میں پیش کردہ شواہد کی بنیاد پر کیا جانا ہے---سیکشن 195 ، سی آر پی سی صرف اس صورت میں راغب ہوگا جب مذکورہ شق میں مذکور جرائم کو کسی دستاویز کے حوالے سے کسی عدالت میں پیش کیے جانے یا ثبوت میں دیئے جانے کے بعد انجام دیا گیا ہو-- دستاویز کی موجودگی سے انکار نہیں کیا گیا تھا---- تسلیم کیا گیا ، دستاویز پیش نہیں کی گئی تھی یا ثبوت میں نہیں دی گئی تھی---اس طرح ، جوڈیشل مجسٹریٹ کے نتائج مخالف تھے اور اس کے خلاف قانون کے احکامات کو الگ کر دیا گیا تھا--------
Request for physical remand of the accused was turned down and he was discharged---Held: that record showed that accused had been nominated in the FIR for preparing false and forged agreement to sell the property of late mother of complainant---Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused on the ground that matter was sub-judice between the parties on civil side, where the alleged document was used for obtaining stay orders---Court is the competent forum to proceed under S.195, Cr.P.C, if the document is found to be false and ficticious---Private person is barred by S.195, Cr.P.C to make any complaint in such regard---Standard of proof required in the two proceedings is entirely different---Civil cases are decided on preponderance of evidence, while in a criminal case, the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given---Moreover, there is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both cases have to be decided based on the evidence adduced therein---Section 195, Cr.P.C will be attracted only when the offenses enumerated in the said provision have been committed concerning a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court---Existence of the document was not denied---Admittedly, the document had not been produced or given in evidence---Thus, the findings of the Judicial Magistrate were perverse and against the law---Impugned orders were set aside and matter was remanded to decid the same afresh---
ORDER
...........
.---Through the instant petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Section-30, District Courts, Lahore, have been challenged, whereby the accused/respondent No.5 was discharged from the case for insufficient incriminating material regarding the accused's implication.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Bare facts and perusal of the impugned order show that the investigating officer, through the application, requested for further physical remand of respondent No. 5. The physical remand of respondent No.5 was asked for by the police as some document had to be recovered from him for completion of the investigation. The Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, while discharging the accused (respondent No. 5), turned down the request for further physical remand of the accused (respondent No. 5). The accused (respondent No. 5) was discharged on the following grounds:-
"I.O through this application requested for further physical remand of the accused person.
The record shows the accused as nominated in FIR for preparing a false and forged agreement to sell belonging to the property of Naziran Bibi (late), the mother of complainant. Previously seven days physical remand was accorded for the completion of investigation and recovery of alleged document. Presently, the matter is sub-judice between the parties on civil side, where the alleged document is used for obtaining stay orders. The court is the competent forum to proceed under section 195 Cr.P.C., if the document is found to be false and fictitious. A private person is barred by section 195, Cr.P.C. make any complaint in this regard.
So far as facts are concerned, during the investigation conducted till so far no forgery is established on part of present accused. As per report by ADC (R) license in the name of Muhammad Sharif (Stamp Vendor) is found to be valid from 1974 to 23.01.2015 (when cancelled). However, Stamp vending register for 2013-14 was not deposited by said Stamp Vendor but it could not be termed that stamp papers issued during this period are fake and fictitious. Nothing is recovered from the possession of present accused despite of 07 days physical remand. In such circumstances, I do not find any incriminating material on record and turn down the request of I.O for physical remand. The accused is discharged from this case FIR and be released, if not required in any other case."
Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings is entirely different. Civil cases are decided based on preponderance of evidence, while in a criminal case, the entire burden lies on the prosecution, and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both cases have to be decided based on the evidence adduced therein. Section 195, Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offenses enumerated in the said provision have been committed concerning a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. The existence of the document is not denied. The learned counsel for respondent No. 5 admitted that the document had not been produced or given in evidence. Findings of the Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, are perverse and against the law. The findings of the Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, are perverse and result from misreading and non-reading the oral and documentary evidence on the record and file. The order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, is set aside. The matter is referred to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lahore, to entrust the case to any other Judicial Magistrate Section-30 to decide the matter afresh after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and allowing them to be heard by the law.
4. With the above observations, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Writ Petition No. 82843 of 2023
Rasoolan Bibi vs Versus
The State
0 Comments