13/08/2019
*FAKE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN COURT-----REMEDY*
1 *2017 MLD 1815* LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SABIHA SARDAR
Side Opponent : ABID JAMEEL
Ss. 435, 476, 6 & 561-A---Family Courts Act (###V of 1964), S.5 & Sched.---Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower, maintenance allowance and dowry---Allegation of producing of forged documents---Revision---Scope---Application under S.476 , Cr.P.C ., before Family Court was dismissed being incompetent---Order of Family Court was assailed through revision---Maintainability---Revisional court under S.435, Cr.P.C ., could examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by subordinate criminal court---Subordinate criminal court, for the purpose of S.435, Cr.P.C ., meant the "court" as mentioned in S.6 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Admittedly, the Family Court did not fall within the classes of "criminal courts" as mentioned in S.6, Cr.P.C .---Family Court was established under the Family Courts Act, 1964; decision or decree passed by the Family Court was appealable to the High Court, or to the District court---Family Court could not be termed as subordinate criminal court within the meaning of S.435, Cr.P.C ., thus any order or finding of the Family Court could not be called in question through criminal revision---Application filed under S.561-A, Cr.P.C ., was allowed by setting aside order passed by the revisional court.
2 *2017 MLD 1815* LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SABIHA SARDAR
Side Opponent : ABID JAMEEL
Ss. 561-A & 476---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 193---Family Courts Act (###V of 1964), S.5 & Sched.---Petitioner filed suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower, maintenance allowance and dowry articles in the Family Court which was partially decreed in her favour---Respondent moved application under S.476 , Cr.P.C ., against the petitioner with the contention that petitioner had produced certain receipts, which showed purchase of the dowry articles and those receipts were forged---Respondent applied for making all the owners of shops as party, fromwhere said articles were allegedly purchased---Said application was dismissed by the Family Court being not competent---Respondent challenged the said order through revision petition, which was decided by the revisional court and matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh decision---Petitioner challenged the said order passed by the revisional court---Validity---Proceedings under S.476 , Cr.P.C ., could only be initiated by the Family Court if the said court had arrived at the conclusion that the receipts were dubious in nature or were fabricated---Family Court having not drawn any conclusion, proceedings under S. 476, Cr.P.C ., were not warranted in the case---Record showed that respondent had made no serious efforts to challenge the authenticity of receipts as neither he summoned the shopkeepers concerned nor placed on record any material to raise suspicion about their genuineness---Shopkeepers were cited as accused in the petition by the respondent, which showed that proceedings under S.476 , Cr.P.C ., were aimed at using them as tool to secure positive ends in the litigation arising out of the decision of the Family Court---Application filed under S.561-A, Cr.P.C ., was dismissed by the High Court by setting aside order passed by revisional court.
3 *2017 PCrLJN 217* LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 476 & 4(h)---Complaint in writing---Cognizance under S. 476, Cr.P.C .---Scope---For taking cognizance under S.476 , Cr.P.C . complaint in writing, as provided under S.4(h), Cr.P.C . was not the requirement of law.
4 *2015 SCMR 1373* SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : AMEER REHMAN
Side Opponent : AMEER MUMTAZ
S. 476---Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Order [P.O. 12 of 1980], para 12---Abuse of the process of the Court---Supreme Court dismissed petition filed by the petitioners/accused persons and also issued notices to them to show cause as to why action under para 12 of President's Order No.12 of 1980, and S.476 , Cr.P.C . should not be initiated against them for abusing the process of the Supreme Court---Plea of counsel of accused persons was that they were not highly educated, and therefore, there was absence of mens rea and as a consequence the notice issued to them should be discharged---Validity---Supreme Court observed that, in the present proceedings, it was not for the Court to make a factual determination of the existence or otherwise of mens rea, the same being an issue of fact---During proceedings of the present case one of the accused persons had filed an application in Court which was written in Urdu and was also signed by the said accused---Supreme Court, in such circumstances, sent the matter to the Sessions Judge, and directed him to entrust the matter to a competent court for proceedings in accordance with law against the accused persons, and to conclude their trial expeditiously---Order accordingly.
*
5 *2015 PCrLJ 1667* ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : ZOHRA PIRZADA
Side Opponent : S.S.P. ISLAMABAD
Art. 199--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 193, 420, 468 & 471---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss 173, 195 (1)(c) & 476---Constitutional petition---Quashing of proceedings---False evidence, cheating, forgery and using forged document--- Respondent got FIR registered against petitioners alleging that they prepared forged documents which were produced in civil court during trial---Plea raised by petitioners was that for registration of FIR procedure provided under S.195(1)(c), Cr.P.C . was to be adopted---Validity---Court could take cognizance upon issuance of process after report under S.173, Cr.P.C . had been submitted which had reference to that stage when Court had consciously applied its mind and ordered for an inquiry or proceeded with trial of case with a view to determine guilt of accused---All steps or stages prior to issuance of process or prescribed under Chap. XIV of Part-V, Cr.P.C . preceded the stage when a Court could take 'cognizance'---Scope of Ss.195 and 476, Cr.P.C . was restricted to the stage when Court would take 'cognizance' and there was no clog on any of the steps or stages preceding it---Competent Court would take cognizance subject to the condition precedent stipulated under S.195, Cr.P.C . read with S.476 , Cr.P.C .---High Court declined to quash F.I.R. registered against respondents--- Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
*
6 *2014 PLD 41* PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : PAINDA KHAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD BASHIR
O. ###VII, Rr. 2 & 3 & S. 35-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 476---Institution of summary suit on negotiable instrument---Special cost---Proceedings for making false claim---Double jeopardy---Scope---Contention of defendant was that both the pro-notes were taken as security by the arbitrators from the parties and no cash transaction took place between them---Both plaintiff and defendant filed suits for recovery of money on the basis of pro-notes which were dismissed, however, Trial Court imposed special cost and directed for initiation of proceedings under S.476 , Cr.P.C . against the plaintiff---Validity---Both the parties executed pro-notes to each other as a security for arbitration purposes---No cash payment was proved by producing oral or documentary evidence by either party---Pro-notes were not proved as required under the law---Though presumption was attached to negotiable instruments and rebuttal had to be produced but initial burden would lie upon the plaintiff which was lacking in both the present cases---Findings of Trial Court to such effect were not open to exception which were maintained---Ordering proceedings against the person under S.476 , Cr.P.C . was discretion of the court who had made wrong claim in the contents of plaint---Circumstances of the case were to be seen---Court had to take extra care and caution to initiate said proceedings---Conduct of both the parties was not up to the mark and they had taken different stances at different occasions---Such conduct of parties would not mean to impose huge special costs and to initiate proceedings under S.476 , Cr.P.C . against one of the party---No plausible reasons were given to initiate proceedings against the plaintiff---Importance was to be given to the fact as to whether probability of conviction could be expected and there were reasonable grounds for conviction---No action could be initiated under the law in case of refusal of the plaintiff---Cogent and strong evidence/proof was required to initiate proceedings which was lacking in the present case---Trial Court had ordered the initiation of proceedings on presumptions and conjectures---Imposition of special cost on plaintiff had no support from the available record and same could not be imposed without any rhyme or reason and same amounted to double jeopardy---Plaintiff had been burdened with special cost as well as initiation of proceedings under S.476 , Cr.P.C . on account of same allegations---Appeal of plaintiff was partially accepted and findings of Trial Court to the extent of imposition of special cost and initiation of proceedings under S.476 , Cr.P.C . were modified.
7 *2013 PCrLJ 114* PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : SAIF UR REHMAN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 195, 476 476-A & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 193, 195 & 203---Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence and relating to public justice, false evidence, giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction, giving false information respecting an offence committed---Petition for quashing of order and expunction of remarks---Contents of F.I.R. revealed that accused-police official (Station House Officer) allegedly raided the house of a member of a terrorist gang on 14-10-2011, wherein weapons and explosives were found and accordingly an F.I.R. was lodged on the same day---Two local Urdu newspapers had reported the whole story verbatim on 6-10-2011, i.e., eight days prior to the registration of the F.I.R.---Trial Court while hearing the bail application of the said alleged terrorist made the observation regarding the conduct of the accused having given false information/evidence with regard to the commission of the offence and found that act on part of the accused was punishable under Ss.193, 195 and 203, P.P.C. by invoking provisions of S.476 , Cr.P.C . and directed to treat the order as a complaint under S.476 -A, Cr.P.C . read with S.195, P.P.C.---Trial Court issued further orders for initiating proceedings against the accused by way of separate trial and ordered further inquiry into the matter---Contention of accused that newspaper clippings were mere imagination of the news editors and alleged terrorist had never lodged any complaint against his illegal confinement/custody of the police; that false information had been attributed to the accused regarding commission of the offence, and that order of Trial Court, being against the law, was liable to be expunged---Validity---Expunction/deletion of remarks of the Trial Court could have adversely affected the trial proceedings in the F.I.R. lodged against the alleged terrorist---High Court exercised judicial restraint to let the law take its course and observed that contentions raised by accused with respect to present petition could be taken up before the Trial Court, and if they were found correct, accused could be acquitted under S.249-A or 266-K, Cr.P.C .---Petition for quashing of order and expunction of remarks was dismissed, in circumstances.
8 *2013 PLD 194* KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Mst. MARIUM HAYAT
Side Opponent : AHMED SAROOSH
S. 5, Sched.---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.193, 468 & 220---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.195, 476 & 476-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Perjury---Cognizance, taking of---During proceedings in suit for recovery of dowry articles filed by wife, husband relied upon certain receipts of gold ornaments which the jeweller denied to have issued---Wife filed application for initiation of proceedings against husband for giving false evidence before Family Court---Family Court as well as Lower Appellant Court declined to initiate proceedings of perjury against husband---Validity---Family Court was categorized as Civil Court, empowered to record evidence, thus Family Court being Civil Court could take cognizance under Ss.195 and 476, Cr.P.C . which provisions were a check on litigant and parties---Such provisions armed the courts with authority to commit any person who had misled court by producing perjured evidence---Courts exercising civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction were competent to try offence punishable under numerous provisions of Penal Code, 1860, enumerated therein including S.193, P.P.C. (punishment for giving false evidence), when such offence was alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court which was competent to take cognizance---When any person dared to give false evidence in any court competent to record evidence, would expose himself to be committed for perjury---High Court set aside orders passed by Family Court and Lower Appellate Court and application under Ss.193/468/220, P.P.C. filed by wife was granted---High Court directed the Family Court to take cognizance of the offence, try the same itself an/or forward the same to the court having jurisdiction in terms of S.476 -A, Cr.P.C .---Petition was allowed accordingly.
*
9 *2013 PCrLJ 678* ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : RIZWAN KHAN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 476, 195 & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468, 471 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 13 & 199---Constitutional petition---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, common intention---Petition for quashing of F.I.R.---Forged document prepared and submitted in court---Separate proceedings against accused for preparation of forged document and for submission of the same in court---Protection against double punishment---Scope---Accused allegedly prepared a forged document showing himself to be owner of a house and rented out the same to extort money from tenants---Accused also filed a suit in the civil court on the basis of forged document in order to usurp the house---Complainant (actual owner of house) lodged an F.I.R. against the accused for preparing a forged document---Complainant also filed application under S.476 , Cr.P.C . before civil court against the accused for producing a forged document in court---Contention of accused was that registration of F.I.R. was illegal as once a document is produced in court, unless a final verdict on such document had been passed by court, allegation in shape of F.I.R. cannot be levelled; that on one hand complainant had moved application under S.476 , Cr.P.C ., and on the other he had lodged an F.I.R., therefore, in view of Art. 13 of the Constitution, accused could not be jeopardized twice for the same offence---Validity---F.I.R. showed that accused had prepared a forged document by forging the signatures of the complainant---Two separate offences had been committed by the accused; first was committed when accused prepared a forged document, and second when such document was submitted in court--- Court had the prerogative to form an opinion whether to follow the procedure laid down under S. 195, Cr.P.C . for submission of a forged document in court--- Complainant had only moved an application before the civil court under S.476 , Cr.P.C ., for which action had not yet been initiated by the court, therefore, no question of double punishment or double jeopardy arose---Constitutional petition for quashing of F.I.R. was dismissed in circumstances.
*
