Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) — O.XLI, R.33 & S.107 — Appellate Court — Scope of powers — Complete justice — Specific performance — Forged agreement — Role of Trial Court. Appellate Court, in exercise of powers under O.XLI, R.33 & S.107, C.P.C., can pass any order necessary to meet the ends of justice. Where the trial court had failed to properly appreciate evidence or exercise its powers to verify signatures on a disputed agreement to sell, the appellate court was justified in undertaking corrective measures. Trial Court did not frame appropriate issues despite clear pleadings regarding forgery and denial of execution of agreement to sell. The Appellate Court held that it could take steps such as verifying signatures through handwriting expert, summoning witnesses or comparing documents itself to ensure full adjudication of the matter. Cited Cases: • PLD 1989 SC 597 • 2012 SCMR 1258 • 1997 SCMR 1692 • 2005 CLC 686 (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) — S.22 — Discretionary relief — Specific performance — Forged signature — Non-fulfilment of statutory proof — Refusal of decree. Claim for specific performance is discretionary in nature. Plaintiff must strictly fulfill requirements of law including attestation by two witnesses under Arts.17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Where execution of the agreement was doubtful, terms uncertain, and signature on the sale agreement was found to be printed (not handwritten) by the forensic report, no decree could be passed in plaintiff's favour. Relief under S.22 of the Specific Relief Act may be refused even where some evidence of agreement exists. Cited Cases: • 2019 SCMR 524 • 2015 SCMR 828 • 2017 SCMR 1696 • PLD 2015 SC 187 • 2012 SCMR 900 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 — Arts.17, 59, 79 & 84 — Documentary evidence — Specific performance — Agreement not proved — Signature found printed — Evidentiary value. Agreement to sell (Exh.P.1/1) presented by the plaintiff was found to bear signatures printed via artificial means. Handwriting expert’s report revealed clear indicators of non-genuineness. Though expert evidence under Art.59 is not conclusive, when considered in conjunction with contradictions in witness statements and lack of attestation under Art.79, such report became confirmatory of the defence plea. The Appellate Court was also entitled to make independent comparison of handwriting under Art.84. Cited Cases: • 2019 CLD 894 • 1996 SCMR 464 • 2022 SCMR 933 • 2010 YLR 358 (d) Evidence — Burden of proof — Article 117, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 — Specific performance — Plaintiff's duty to prove execution. In suit for specific performance, burden lies on the plaintiff to prove execution of the agreement under Article 117. Plaintiff produced six witnesses; however, material contradictions, inability to confirm dates, execution, contents, and presence of marginal witnesses rendered the evidence unreliable. One key witness admitted the agreement was later cancelled. Others failed to corroborate execution as required under law. (e) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 — Art.10A — Fair trial — Judicial duty — Role of trial courts in evidence management — Directions issued. The Court highlighted trial courts’ obligation to proactively manage evidence and resolve issues timely to uphold Art.10A (right to fair trial). Trial courts must utilize all procedural tools such as directing admission/denial of documents, appointing commissions, recording better statements under Order X, and imposing costs under the Costs of Litigation Act, 2017 to avoid unnecessary delay. Judicial officers failing to ensure efficient trial may face monitoring and disciplinary proceedings. Cited Case: • 2022 CLC 1064 (f) Costs of Litigation Act, 2017 — Implementation — Trial court's failure to impose cost — Administrative recommendations made. The judgment emphasized enforcement of the Costs of Litigation Act, 2017. Trial courts are duty-bound to issue cost notices, record cost statements, and dissuade dilatory tactics. High Court may assign administrative judges to preliminarily screen suits for frivolity before assigning to trial. District Judges/MIT to monitor delays and report failures to the High Court for remedial action. (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) — S.151 — Inherent powers — Role of court in ensuring justice despite party defaults. Court has inherent powers under S.151 C.P.C. to go beyond formal pleadings where justice so demands. It may summon witnesses, call record, or direct forensic tests even without party request. The failure of trial court to exercise such powers in a case involving disputed agreement and alleged forgery was deprecated. (h) Civil Petition — Review application — Infructuousness — When review not maintainable. Where the relief sought in review petition has already been implemented or overtaken by subsequent developments, the application becomes infructuous. In present case, since the document had already been examined by handwriting expert pursuant to order under challenge, review application stood dismissed as infructuous. (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S.476 — Proceedings for forgery — Scope — Remand for fresh decision. In view of findings regarding forged signatures on the sale agreement, the petition seeking action under S.476 Cr.P.C. for initiating criminal proceedings was allowed. The matter was remanded to the concerned court for afresh decision on merits including recording of pro and contra evidence. Disposition: Regular First Appeal No. 512 of 2022 allowed. Judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022 set aside. Review Application No. 9 of 2024 dismissed as infructuous. Writ Petition No. 3742 of 2022 allowed; matter remanded for decision afresh under S.476 Cr.P.C.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, an employee of NADRA, filed a complaint before the Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, alleging harassment by her superiors. During the proceedings, she claimed that the respondents submitted forged and fabricated documents to the inquiry board to implicate her falsely in a medical reimbursement case. The petitioner filed an application under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeking action against the respondents for submitting false evidence. This application was dismissed by the Federal Ombudsman on 25.04.2017, leading to the filing of this writ petition challenging that decision. -----Issues: 1- Can the Federal Ombudsman initiate proceedings under Section 476 Cr.P.C. for alleged forged documents? -----2- Do the documents submitted by the respondents before the Federal Ombudsman fall within the scope of Section 476 Cr.P.C. or Section 195 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)? -----3- Was the Federal Ombudsman’s dismissal of the application lawful and justified? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Jurisdiction under Section 476 Cr.P.C.: The court clarified that Section 476 Cr.P.C. applies only to offenses committed in or in relation to proceedings before a Civil, Revenue, or Criminal Court. The Federal Ombudsman is not classified as such a court under the law. Consequently, the Federal Ombudsman lacked the jurisdiction to entertain or act on an application under Section 476 Cr.P.C. --Nature of the Documents: The petitioner’s claim that the documents were forged and fabricated could not be decided at this stage as the main harassment complaint was still under inquiry and not at the stage of evidence. Section 195 PPC, which deals with fabricating false evidence, was deemed inapplicable because the authenticity or falsity of the documents had not yet been adjudicated. --Dismissal of Application: The Federal Ombudsman’s order dismissing the application was upheld as lawful. The court found that the Ombudsman’s reasoning—that the harassment complaint was pending and the authenticity of documents was not yet a matter of evidence—was in accordance with the law. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 476 Cr.P.C.: The provision is limited to offenses occurring in proceedings before Civil, Revenue, or Criminal Courts. Section 195 PPC: Relates to fabricating false evidence but requires a judicial determination of the falsity of the evidence in question. Federal Ombudsman’s role and jurisdiction are distinct from that of courts, and its powers are confined to handling complaints of workplace harassment.

Summary: Background: The case involves a protracted property dispute between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner, along with her children, sought to quash an FIR registered by the respondent accusing them of forgery and fraud. The FIR was based on allegedly forged documents used in a civil case over the disputed property. The petitioner argued that the FIR, which was registered without court approval, lacked legal authority since it pertained to documents submitted during a court proceeding. Concurrently, the respondent sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner and her children. -----Issues: 1- Whether an FIR based on alleged forgery in documents submitted in a court proceeding can be lawfully registered without court approval. -----2- Whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner and her children should be canceled due to alleged misuse of the concession. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled that the registration of the FIR was valid, emphasizing that Sections 195 and 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) only bar the initiation of criminal proceedings at the trial stage, not at the investigation stage. The court noted that all preliminary steps, including FIR registration and investigation, are permissible before a court officially takes cognizance of the case. Regarding the pre-arrest bail, the court upheld it, citing insufficient evidence of forgery and confirming that the alleged document was signed by the petitioner’s missing husband. The petitions for bail cancellation and FIR quashing were both dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Ch. Nadir Khan and Zafar Ahmad vs. The State [NLR 1989 Cr L J 214] State Government, Madhya Pradesh vs. Hifzul Rahman and others [AIR (39) 1952 Nagpur 12] Zafar Iqbal vs. The State [NLR 1986 Cr L J 14] Muhammad Suleman and others vs. Abdur Razzaque and others [PLD 2005 Lahore 386] Miandad vs. The State and another [1992 SCMR 1286] Muzaffar Iqbal vs. Muhammad Imran Aziz and others [2004 SCMR 231] Muhammad Rizwan vs. The State and 03 others [2007 P.Cr.L.J. 78] Industrial Development Bank etc vs. Mian Asim Farid etc [2006 SCMR 283] Muhammad Nazir vs. Fazal Karim and others [PLD 2012 S.C. 892] Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/O Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad vs. Zafar Awan [PLD 1992 S.C. 72] Muhammad Bashir vs. SHO Okara Cantt and others [PLD 2007 S.C. 539] Director General, Anti Corruption Establishment, Lahore and others vs. Muhammad Akram Khan and others [PLD 2013 SC 401] Rehmat Ali and others vs. Ahmad Din and others [1991 SCMR 185] Miraj Khan vs. Gul Ahmed and 3 others [2000 SCMR 122] Muhammad Mansha vs. Station House Officer, Police Station City, Chiniot, District Jhang and others [PLD 2006 SC 598] Col. Shah Sadiq vs. Muhammad Ashiq and others [2006 SCMR 276] Emperor v. Kh. Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18] Shahnaz Begum vs. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan and another [PLD 1971 SC 677] The State / Anti Narcotics through Director General vs. Rafiq Ahmad Channa [2010 SCMR 580] The State through Force Commander, Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi vs. Khalid Sharif [2006 SCMR 1265] Ehsan Akbar vs. The State and others [2007 SCMR 482]

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 500 & 193--Contention- that defamatory description of petitioner as Mochi in a complaint filed against: lint in Court fell within purview of S. 193 and as such only trial Magistrate should have filed complaint under S. 476, Cr. P. C. and petitioner could not directly file complaint on that behalf for an offence under S. 500, P. P. C--Held, misconceived and not sustainable in law--Offence under S. 500 PPC could not be taken cognizance of except on complaint of aggrieved person- Criminal Procedure. Code (V of 1898), S. 198.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 476---Power of Court to initiate proceedings for offences committed in relation to judicial proceedings---Scope and object---Purpose of S.476, Cr.P.C is to preserve the sanctity and dignity of the judicial process by empowering Courts to take action against those who give false evidence, submit forged documents, or otherwise abuse the process of law---Said power extends to civil, criminal and revenue Courts in respect of offences enumerated in Ss.193 to 196, 199 to 200, 205 to 211 and 228, P.P.C---Before initiating such proceedings, the Court is bound to hold a fair preliminary inquiry and provide opportunity of hearing to the accused in accordance with principles of natural justice---Failure to conduct such inquiry or to afford hearing renders the proceedings illegal and violative of due process of law---Reference made to Qazi Naveed ul Islam v. District Judge Gujrat (PLD 2023 SC 298) and Abdul Hakeem v. The State (1994 SCMR 1103). (b) ---Revisional jurisdiction---Exercise of power by Revisional Court under S. 435, Cr.P.C---Revisional Court had lawfully exercised its authority in remanding matter to Magistrate for proper inquiry under S.476, Cr.P.C---Revisional Court had neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor committed any illegality or irregularity---Order passed in accordance with law and procedural fairness---No ground for interference in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--- ----Arts. 10-A & 13---Due process and protection against double punishment---Contention that passing of Impugned Order amounted to double punishment after imposition of costs at time of withdrawal of civil suit, held to be misconceived---Imposition of costs by Civil Court was civil in nature while direction for inquiry under S.476, Cr.P.C pertained to criminal liability for false verification and perjury---Two operate in distinct legal spheres and do not constitute double jeopardy---No violation of Arts.10-A or 13 of the Constitution made out. Petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---Sections 195, 476, 480, 485, 487; Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 174--- Procedure for trial of offenses under Sections 172 to 188, PPC---Scope and limitations---The appellant, a Station House Officer (SHO), was convicted under Section 174, PPC, by the Additional Sessions Judge for failing to produce an accused in compliance with a court order. Held, offenses under Sections 172 to 188, PPC, fall within the purview of Section 195, Cr.P.C., which prescribes that such offenses cannot be tried without a written complaint from the public servant concerned or a competent court. The Additional Sessions Judge was not legally authorized to directly convict and sentence the appellant. Instead, the complaint should have been forwarded to a Magistrate with jurisdiction for trial under the prescribed procedure. (b) Judicial authority and contempt of court ---Scope of powers under Sections 480 and 485, Cr.P.C.---Offenses such as refusal to produce a document or answer questions (Sections 175 and 179, PPC) can attract the summary procedure under Sections 480 and 485, Cr.P.C., allowing the court to impose up to seven days’ imprisonment. However, Section 174, PPC, does not fall within this framework, and its trial requires adherence to the procedure under Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. (c) Restriction on judicial powers ---Section 487, Cr.P.C.---Judges and Magistrates (except High Court Judges) are barred from directly trying offenses under Section 195, Cr.P.C., committed before themselves or in contempt of their authority. In such cases, the Judge or Magistrate must refer the matter to a competent Magistrate for trial. ----- Disposition: Conviction and sentence under Section 174, PPC, set aside as unlawful. The Additional Sessions Judge may initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.