2022 LHC 8214
The respondent-Shafqat Pervaiz filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- under order 37 of the Civil Procedure of the Code along with accrued markup till realization of the amount based on the cheque against the petitioner--------The petitioner filed application for proceeding against respondent No.1 under sections 193, 420, 419 PPC read with other penal provisions of section 476 PPC read with section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned trial court------------The respondent-Shafqat Pervaiz filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- under order 37 of the Civil Procedure of the Code along with accrued markup till realization of the amount based on the cheque against the petitioner------The petitioner claimed that the respondent stated that he is a retired manager from the bank, which is not correct and, in this way, he committed impersonation. So, the respondent had given false information while filing the above-said suit against the petitioner.
A reading of the provision of 195 CrPC clearly shows that the learned Court is competent to take note of whether to initiate the proceedings or not at the time of the final disposal of the suit. Therefore, the pendency of a suit is a bar to the initiation of proceedings. Under the Law of Evidence also, the contents of documents must be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to an admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having yet to be produced and marked as required under the Qanoon-e-Shahdat Order 1984 cannot be relied upon by the Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court. The petitioner admitted that the learned District Judge, Sahiwal, still had not decided on the civil suit. In above said situation and admission of the petitioner, the conclusion drawn by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Sahiwal through impugned order dated 14.09.2022, is the appropriate decision. The petitioner did not point out any reason, much less cogent, to interfere in the impugned order. Meaning thereby the trial Judge has recorded the compelling grounds. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction under Section under sections 435, 439 Cr.P.C., unless and until the same is illegal, perverse, and without jurisdiction. Since this court has observed no such patent illegality or legal infirmity, the impugned order
Crl. Revision
78903/22
Nadeem Ahmad Vs Shafqat Parvaze etc.
Justice Miss Aalia Neelum
13-12-2022
2022 LHC 8214
0 Comments