Sabir Jan D/o Ali Hassan vs Changez Mustafa And Another

Balochistan High Court · 2024 · Before Hon'ble Justice Shaukat Ali Rakhshani

Appellant Sabar Jan calls in question acquittal of respondent Nos.1 to 6 recorded vide order dated 22.07.2024 (“impugned order”) drawn by learned Judicial Magistrate- X/FCM, Quetta (“Trial Court”) in a case vide FIR No.189 of 2023 dated 12.09.2023 lodged with Police Station Civil Line, Quetta under the offences punishable under section 420, 468, 471 & 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (“PPC”).

2. Laconically, facts of the case are that complainant Sabar Jan got lodged the FIR ibid with the averments that her brother Ahmed Ali (Late) passed away on 12.12.2021, whose maid Mechid (respondent No.4), while pretending herself to be widow of her late brother with the connivance of Changez Mustafa (respondent No.1) prepared a sale deed dated 04.08.2021, whereby respondent No.4 sold out house of her brother late Ahmed Ali against a consideration of Rs.20,000,000/- (Twenty million), wherein Mehdi Hussain (respondent No.5) stood witness of the sale deed, whereof she received Rs.4,000,000/- (Four million), however, later the sale deed was found to be forged.

3. After usual investigation, respondent Nos.1 to 6 were sent up to the Trial Court to face the deeds of their culpability. On commencement of the trial, the acquitted respondents entered the plea of denial. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed applications Crl. Acq Appeal No. 380 of 2024 (2) Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. under section 249-A of CrPC, which were allowed and consequently they were acquitted of the indictment vide impugned order dated 22.07.2024.

4. Heard. Record pondered upon with the able assistance of learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Admittedly, the FIR has been lodged after a delay of fourteen (14) months, whereof no explanation has been offered, thus deliberation and concoction cannot be ruled out. The allegations contained in the FIR seems to be of civil nature, which can only be concluded by a Civil Court in order to determine the rights of the parties as contemplated under section 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877. Moreso, the evidence on record is not enough to hold the acquitted respondents guilty of the charge, thus there being no probability of the respondents being convicted for the indictment, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly recorded acquittal in their favour. Needless to observe that on final verdict in favour of the appellant in respect of forgery by the Civil Court, she may resort to the avaiable remedy, but at this stage, the allegations are not only pre- mature, but the evidence also seems insufficient to return a verdict of guilt.

6. The reasons drawn by the Trial Court suffers from no perversity or misreading of evidence, therefore, we are reluctant to meddle with acquittal recorded by the Trial Court vide order impugned herein.

7. Corollary, the appeal being bereft of merits is dismissed in limine. Announced in open Court. Judge Crl. Acq Appeal No. 380 of 2024 (3) Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. This ____day of September, 2024. Judge

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…