2026 P Cr. L J 638

 2026 P Cr. L J 638

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J

Mirza YAHYA BAIG and another---Petitioners

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Crl. Misc. Nos. 53550-B and 42305-B of 2025, decided on 30th

September, 2025.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 154---First Information Report, registration of--- Object, purpose

and scope---First Information Report is not meant to decide guilt or

innocence but to activate law enforcing agencies to immediately

move for collection/preservation of evidence.

Ch. Muhammad Aslam and others v. Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh

and others 2020 PCr.LJ 742; Skindar v. the State and another 2006

SCMR 1786; Haleem Khan v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ 497; Muhammad

Paryal v. The State 2019 YLR 2316; Muhammad Ilyas Ashraf and 3

others v. Aitzaz Ahmad, Magistrate 1st Class, Gujranwala and 2 others

2004 YLR 1299; Atta Ullah v. The State PLD 2000 Lah. 364; Riaz Ahmad

and 3 others v. The State PLD 1994 Lah. 485; Rehman and others v. The

State PLD 1968 Lah. 464; Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945

(PC) 18; Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P and others AIR 2014 SC

187 and Muhammad Ahsan v. The State and 3 others 2024 LHC 6439

rel.

(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Art. 71---Criminal trial---Shahada-Ala-Al-Shahadah, principle of---

Applicability---Appointing of attorney by witness of a fact---Validity--

-Sometimes person who is not eye-witness, though is closely related

to deceased or injured, when hears about commission of offence,

not only becomes the complainant, but can give evidence on behalf

of an eye-witness if he is unable to appear before the Court---

Witness has been authorized under third proviso to Art.71 of

Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to appoint his attorney to depose on his

behalf before Court.

Rai Muhammad Aslam v. Additional Sessions Judge and others PLD

2025 Lah. 405 rel.

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 154 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 467 & 471---

Cheating, forgery and use of forged documents---Pre-arrest bail,

refusal of---First Information Report through attorney---Accused

persons sought pre-arrest bail in a case which was registered on the

statement of attorney appointed by owner of property in question---

Validity---Attorney of a person can lodge FIR with police and can

also initiate criminal proceedings before Court for the interest of his

principal---If proceedings before Court are initiated by principal,

and he becomes unavailable or incapacitated, the attorney can also

continue it on his behalf with the permission of the Court---Court

should also encourage such practice keeping in view the hardships

involved in the case to reduce delays in criminal process which

would restore confidence of public on Courts of law for acquisition

or regulation of their rights---Court should decide the matter on

production of relevant evidence only that can also be recorded by

using modern techniques like through online applications---Misuse

of process by attorney, through registration of false FIR or filing of

private complaint, can well be met through sound remedial

measures including action pursuant to Ss.181, 182, 211, 213 and 250,

P.P.C.---First Information Report could be registered through

attorney---Accused persons were not entitled to be granted pre-

arrest bail within the contemplation of Ss. 497/498, Cr.P.C.---Pre-

arrest bail application was dismissed accordingly.

Sonia Sharief v. Additional District and Sessions Judge and others

2024 CLC 1170; Khalid Mehmood and 3 others v. Safdar Iqbal and

another 2017 PCr.LJ 1104; Ghazanfar Ali v. M. Zahid Hussain and

others PLD 2011 Lah. 179; Amanullah Khan v. The State 2011 PCr.LJ

774; Mian Amer Saeed v. Station House Officer 2011 YLR 1567; Jasbir

Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Police Crime Branch (Eow) 2013(9)

Ad(Delhi) 284; 2013(138) DRJ 683; 2013(4) JCC 2638; 2014(12) R.C.R.

(Civil) 1461; Vinita S. Rao v. M/s Essen Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. and

another 2015 AIR (SC) 882; M/s Shankar Finance and Investments v.

State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2009 AIR (SC) 422; Sarsibala

Dawan and others v. State (Patna) AIR 1962 Pat 244; Muhammad Ayub

v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 2425; T.C. Mathal v. District and Sessions Judge,

Thiruvananthapuram, (SC) AIR 1999 SC 1385; Harishanker Rastogi v.

Girdhari Sharma (SC) AIR 1978 SC 1019; Malik Azmat Ullah v.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 10

others 2023 PCr.LJ 290; Rai Muhammad Aslam v. Additional Sessions

Judge and others PLD 2025 Lah. 405 and Vishwa Mitter v. O.P. Poddar

AIR 1984 SC 5 ref.

(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

---- S. 498--- Pre-arrest bail--- Scope--- Concession of pre-arrest bail is

an extra ordinary relief, which is meant only for innocent persons where intended arrest of accused is found to be actuated with mala

fide on the part of complainant or police.

Gulshan Ali Solangi and others v. The State through P.G. Singh 2020

SCMR 249 and Ahtisham Ali v. The State 2023 SCMR 975 rel.

S.M. Zeeshan Mirza with Petitioners.

Muhammad Asif Ashraf, Deputy Prosecutor General with Murtaza

Sub-Inspector for the State.

Hafiz Rehman Aziz for the Complainant.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J.---These are second pre-arrest bail

applications on behalf of respective petitioners; earlier

(Crl.Misc.No.7907-B/2025) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order

dated 27.02.2025, because at that time their arrest was deferred till the

result of reports qua comparison of thumb impressions and signatures

on the disputed documents.

2. Petitioners Mirza Yahya Baig and Mirza Tahir Baig through their

respective bail petitions i.e., Crl.Misc.No.53550-B/2025 and

Crl.Misc.No.42305-B/2025 seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.1966

dated 02.12.2024 for offences under sections 420, 468, 471 of Pakistan

Penal Code 1860 ( the P.P.C ) registered at Police Station Narang,

District Sheikhupura.

3. Mirza Mazhar Baig, an overseas Pakistani living in Canada

maintains a piece of land measuring Nine (9) Acres at Mouza Ghorian

Mughlaan, Tehsil Muridkay, District Sheikhupura which was on lease

with Mirza Yahya Baig, accused/petitioner who refused to return the

landed property in year 2024. Upon which it stands disclosed that he

has prepared an ante-dated forged agreement to sell dated 09.05.2017

attested by witnesses including Mirza Tahir Baig, accused/petitioner,

and then obtained an injunctive order from the concerned civil court

by filing a suit for specific performance. Mirza Mazhar Baig got lodged

present FIR through his attorney namely Muhammad Usman Baig and

claimed that on 09.05.2017, he was in Canada as reflected from entry

and exit stamps on his passport.

4. Learned counsel seeks bail for the petitioners merely on two

grounds that the FIR was lodged through attorney which course is not

recognized in law and in support whereof he relied on cases reported

as Sonia Sharief v. Additional District and Sessions Judge and others

(2024 CLC 1170); Khalid Mehmood and 3 others v. Safdar Iqbal and

another (2017 PCr.LJ 1104); Ghazanfar Ali v. M. Zahid Hussain and

others (PLD 2011 Lah. 179). Secondly, that the matter in dispute is

pending before the civil court which has the ultimate jurisdiction for the determination of civil rights of the parties and before that no

criminal action can be initiated. On the other hand, Learned Deputy

Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant opposed

the bail on the ground that FIR has legally been registered and forgery

on agreement to sell stands proved by the report of PFSA, whereas

civil and criminal proceedings can go side by side.

5. While taking the objections of learned counsel for the petitioners,

it is observed that the second objection is not of worth at this stage of

the proceedings because of an approved jurisprudential regime that

civil and criminal proceedings can go side by side, until criminal

proceedings are ordered to be stayed till the decision of civil litigation.

So far as the first objection is concerned, suffice it to observe that

recitals of FIR are in oral account of Mirza Mazhar Baig

owner/Principal, and name of attorney namely Muhammad Usman

Baig, is mentioned as informant only which does not offend the spirit

of section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 ( the Code ) as it

identifies an informant only and not the complainant. However; Form

No. 24.5 (1) of Police Rules 1934 accommodates both informant and the

complainant; therefore, contention of counsel somewhat loses its

force. For instance, if somebody requests others to pass on information

to police that he/she is being subjected to certain offence, would that

passing of information be not considered as first information report. It

is trite that any person authorized or bound by a public duty including

a police officer can report the crime or commission of any offence

which is not merely a personal wrong but a public wrong too that

violates the public law. This Court in a case reported as Ch.

Muhammad Aslam and others v. Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh and

others (2020 PCr.LJ 742) demarcated a distinction between the

personal wrong and public wrong held for the competency of any

person to move the legal machinery in following words:

As noted above, wrongs are divisible into two sorts or species, (i)

personal wrong and (ii) public wrong. The crime is a public

wrong, a breach and violation of pubic right affects the whole

community. The crime is deemed by law to be a harm to the

society in general. Irrespective of the fact that its immediate

victim is an individual, therefore, even in absence of availability

of any private person to be a complainant, the State

functionaries himself can report a crime for bringing to book the

person who had committed a crime. It may be pointed out that,

any individual cognizant of the commission of crime, can put the

machinery of law into motion. In doing so the individual, is not

under any legal obligation to show that personally he is

aggrieved of the Act complained of. This is because that the

commission of crime is deemed not only a wrong against the individual but the same is deemed to be a crime against the

society. The object behind putting the machinery of law against a

person accused of commission of any criminal wrong is to get

the person punished for the act illegal he had done. The

punishment may be corporeal or in fine or in both.

The above developed jurisprudence is somewhat embodied in the

Code by virtue of which the general public is bound by section 44 to

report the commission of certain offences listed therein; similarly,

Section 45 also requires the village-headman, accountants, landholders

and others to report certain matters, that does include commission of

any non-bailable offence. This pattern is also supported by Chapter 24

of the Police Rules, 1934.

6. The scheme of criminal law manifestly, makes it clear that basic

purpose of FIR was not meant to decide guilt or innocence but to

activate the law enforcing agencies to immediately move for

collection/preservation of evidence. In cases reported as Skindar v. the

State and another (2006 SCMR 1786); Haleem Khan v. The State (2022

PCr.LJ 497); Muhammad Paryal v. The State (2019 YLR 2316);

Muhammad Ilyas Ashraf and 3 others v. Aitzaz Ahmad, Magistrate 1st

Class, Gujranwala and 2 others (2004 YLR 1299); Atta Ullah v. The State

(PLD 2000 Lahore 364); Riaz Ahmad and 3 others v. The State (PLD

1994 Lah. 485); Rehman and others v. The State (PLD 1968 Lah 464);

Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (AIR 1945 (PC) 18), the Superior

courts have held many times that criminal machinery can be set into

motion by any person irrespective of his being the aggrieved or victim

of the crime. This Court once again with in-depth study on the subject

while confronting Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and others (AIR 2014

SC 187) has also discussed different modes and manners for reporting

the crime to police, its duty to respond and regulate the criminal

process and thus, held that FIR through any person is legal. Case

approved for reporting titled Muhammad Ahsan v. The State and 3

others (2024 LHC 6439) is referred in this respect.

7. Now see as to whether FIR can be lodged through an attorney; but

before that it is essential to understand the concept of power of

attorney. Power of attorney gives one or more people the right to act as

your agent when you re unavailable, incapacitated, or otherwise

indisposed. The attorney in charge possesses broad or limited

authority to act on behalf of the principal. In Punjab, Pakistan by

virtue of section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, the execution of

any document mentions therein on behalf the principal by attorney

has a legal effect. On legal side, Section 182 of the Contract Act, 1872

defines the connotations of Principal and Agent in following manner: 182. "Agent" and "principal" defined. An "agent" is a person

employed to do any act for another or to represent another in

dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is

done, or who is so represented, is called the "principal".

Section 188 of the Contract Act, 1872 gives the authority to the agent

in these words:

188. Extent of agent's authority. An agent having an authority to do

an act has authority to do every lawful thing which is necessary

in order to do such act.

An agent having an authority to carry on a business has authority to

do every lawful thing necessary for the purpose, or usually done

in the course of conducting such business.

Illustrations

(a) A is employed by B, residing in London, to recover at [Karachi] a

debt due to B. A may adopt any legal process necessary for the

purpose of recovering the debt, and may give a valid discharge

for the same.

The visit of supra legal provisions and concept of power of attorney

make it convenient for the Attorney to do every lawful thing which is

necessary for the discharge of the authority or conduct of the act, for

which he was appointed; it may also include the situation when any

forgery or offence is committed by any person relating to affairs of the

business for which the attorney was appointed. Above concept is also

supported by some legal precedents as well. The Sindh High Court in a

case reported as Amanullah Khan v. The State (2011 PCr.LJ 774) has

held as under;

On the question of lodging of FIR by the attorney of the complainant

is devoid of any merit. It is now a settled proposition that every

member of the public has a right to set the wheels of criminal

prosecution in motion and there is no embargo for any person to

lodge a complaint or to be personally aggrieved.

This Court in a case reported as Mian Amer Saeed v. Station House

Officer (2011 YLR 1567) has held for the proposition in following

terms:

There is no weight in the argument that application under sections

22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. could not be filed by respondent No.2

through his special attorney. It is not requirement of law that

complaint must be filed by the person who is victim of any

offence. An information regarding commission of an offence can

be laid before the police by any person, before whom such offence has been committed by any person. The petitioner has

not denied issuance of the cheques, which have been

dishonoured by the bank and act of the petitioner, prima facie,

constitutes an offence falling under section 489-F, P.P.C. Filing of

a suit for recovery of the amount of the dishnoured cheques is

no bar against initiation of criminal proceedings against the

petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C., as civil and criminal

proceedings can be initiated side by side.

Delhi High Court in a case reported as Jasbir Singh v. Deputy

Commissioner of Police Crime Branch (Eow) [(2013(9) AD(Delhi) 284):

(2013(138) DRJ 683): (2013(4) JCC 2638): (2014(12) R.C.R.(Civil) 1461)],

refused to quash the FIR registered on the complaint of a power of

attorney holder, and held as under;

In the present case also, the provisions of the Cr.P.C. apply in respect

of the offences mentioned in the FIR and merely because the

complainants, who are both residents of Canada are not in a

position to personally travel to India to lodge their complaint

and pursue the same with the police cannot be a ground to seek

quashing of the FIR, registered on the complaint of their Power

of Attorney holder.

In a case reported as Vinita S. Rao v. M/s. Essen Corporate Services

Pvt. Ltd. and another (2015 AIR (SC) 882), Supreme Court of India in a

case relating to complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act permitted the power of attorney holder to file

complaint despite that under said law complaint could only be filed by

the payee. The observations are as under;

The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before

the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint.

However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the

transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or

possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.

In a case reported as M/s. Shankar Finance and Investments v. State

of Andhra Pradesh and others (2009 AIR (SC) 422), Supreme Court of

India held that it is not necessary that proprietary concern should file

complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, on dishonor of cheque, rather complaint in writing by power of

attorney holder in name of payee is maintainable.

8. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners

mainly discuss the initiation of proceeding by the attorney before the

Court and in such cases the respective courts declared such act of

attorney as unauthorized, but such judgments could not discuss the

concept of Pleader introduced by the Code to meet such situation. We know that aggrieved and accused, are the two parties in a criminal

litigation whose representation in the criminal process is regulated

under the Code through the institutions of Prosecutor and Pleader

respectively. Pleader always represents a private party before the

Court. Commission of an offence is considered an act not only against

an aggrieved person but State too whose law is violated; therefore,

State is represented by Prosecutor whereas complainant (if wish) and

the accused are represented through Pleader. What the concept

Prosecutor and Pleader implies is reflected from the definition of these

two terms as mentioned in the Code. As per section 4 (t) of the Code

Public Prosecutor means any person appointed under section 492,

and includes any person acting under the directions of a Public

Prosecutor and any person conducting a prosecution on behalf

of the State in any High Court in exercise of its original criminal

jurisdiction

Later prosecutor was defined through the Punjab Criminal

Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006

with different designations for prosecution before District Courts,

Special Courts and Superior Courts. The concept of prosecution

through attorney is also in place; as per section 495 of the Code, Court

can permit any person other than Public Prosecutor to conduct

prosecution, and that person either personally or through pleader can

conduct prosecution.

9. Now who is the Pleader in a criminal process has been defined in

Section-4 (r) of the Code as under;

Pleader. Pleader used with reference to any proceeding in any

Court, means a pleader or a mukhtar, authorized under any law

for the time being in force to practice in such Court, and

includes (1) an advocate, a vakil and an attorney of a High Court

so authorized, and (2) any other person appointed with the

permission of the court to act in such proceeding:

Above definition shows that for a Mukhtar, Vakil, Advocate or

Attorney, the word pleader shall only be used in relation to his

representation in any proceedings before the Court. Per above

definition, Pleader and Mukhtar must be authorized by law to practice

in such Court, which includes an authorized advocate, vakil and an

attorney of High Court. The word advocate though has been defined in

the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, Rules 1976

and Punjab Bar Council Rules 2023 but Mukhtar , Vakil and Attorney

have not been defined. By tracking their history, it transpires that a

Mukhtar is an authorized person who can act on behalf of another in

legal matters, and their authority to practice in courts depends on the

specific jurisdiction and the type of "Mukhtar Nama" or Power of Attorney they hold. Historically, a mukhtar who passed the required

exams could be authorized to practice, but with restrictions on their

roles. They typically practiced in subordinate criminal courts and were

considered inferior to pleaders, who practiced in civil and revenue

courts. Modern legal systems have largely replaced the old "mukhtar"

and "pleader" roles with the more comprehensive role of an advocate.

Whereas concept of an Advocate originated in ancient Rome and

Greece, where orators pleaded cases in courts. It later became more

formalized in England around the 13th century, with distinct roles for

pleaders and attorneys. The profession was further professionalized

and regulated under British Rule in India, with various acts and

councils established to set standards for legal practitioners. Like, the

Legal Practitioners Act, 1846 (I of 1846); the Legal Practitioners Act,

1853 (XX of 1853); the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (XVIII of 1879); the

Legal Practitioners Act, 1884 (IX of 1884); the Legal Practitioners

(Amendment) Act, 1908 (I of 1908). However, ancient origins can be

classified in to two categories as under;

Ancient Greece: The first lawyers were orators who pleaded cases in

public assemblies.

Ancient Rome: Initially, advocates were rhetoricians, not legal

experts. A class of legal specialists called jurisconsults emerged,

who were wealthy amateurs that gave legal opinions but did not

make their living from law. Emperor Claudius legalized

advocacy as a profession, allowing advocates to be paid for their

services, though he also imposed a fee ceiling. Later, a more

subordinate role, the procurator, gained importance as legal

procedures became more reliant on written documents.

English development. The legal profession became more established

during the reign of King Edward I (1272 1307). Early lawyers included

two types. Serjeants; Pleaders who represented clients in court and

Attorneys who handled procedural matters, though they also started

appearing on behalf of clients over time. Similarly, Indian evolution

encompasses ancient and Medieval India when legal roles were filled

by Hindu Pandits and Muslim legal advisors (Muftis) who were

knowledgeable in traditional laws. Under British Rule, the

establishment of British courts in the 17th century led to a more

organized system, with practitioners like attorneys and vakils. The

Legal Practitioners Act of 1879 consolidated laws and established

qualifications for various legal roles like Pleaders, Vakils, and

Mukhtars. The Indian Bar Councils Act of 1926 gave the legal

profession more self-governance. In Post-independence era, the

Advocates Act of 1961 was enacted to create a unified and autonomous

legal profession with Bar Councils at the national and State levels.

Whereas Pakistan promulgated the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act in year 1973, through which respective Bar Councils issue

practicing licence to advocates. The term Vikal is broader than an

advocate yet it is now used as synonym for an advocate whereas

Attorney of High Court is the Advocate who is entitled to practice in

such court.

10. Now adverting back to the definition of Pleader , it is observed

that definition also includes the following as well;

(2) any other person appointed with the permission of the court to

act in such proceeding

This is the window left at the discretion of the Court creating a room

for accommodating the attorney of any person (accused or

complainant) to be appointed as pleader in any proceedings. In the

Code at 22 occasions, pleader has been allowed to act for another

person in different proceedings. (Sections 116, 144, 145, 147, 148, 204,

340, 353, 360, 361, 366, 419, 421, 422, 423, 428, 439, 440, 493, 495, 505

and 540A are referred). Though pleader now in organized form is an

advocate who enters appearance on behalf of a party by filing power

of attorney, but the Court cannot insist the party about hiring of an

advocate in each and every case rather can permit any person to act as

pleader for any party. Some instances with relevant case laws are

referred here. Co-accused can act as pleader if so permitted; Sarsibala

Dawan and others v. State (Patna) (AIR 1962 Pat 244). Private person

must get the prior permission; Muhammad Ayub v. The State (1991

PCr.LJ 2425). Power of attorney holder cannot become pleader unless

he secures permission of the Court; T.C. Mathal v. District and Sessions

Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, (SC) (AIR 1999 SC 1385). The discretion of

the Court in permitting any person to appear as pleader must be

exercised judicially with due regard to the interest of the party

engaging him; Harishanker Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma, (SC) (AIR 1978

SC 1019). There are some more instances in our legal system where

proceedings are allowed to be regulated through a person holding

power of attorney. A man who is not in Pakistan can apply for

protective bail through his attorney to join criminal process in a case

registered against him; reliance in this respect is placed on case

reported as Malik Azmat Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan through

Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 10 others (2023 PCr.LJ 290).

11. Though the precedents referred by learned counsel for the

petitioners speak that criminal administration of justice recognizes

only those as a witness or complainant who either have seen, heard or

at least perceived any fact towards the offence, hence an attorney

being not speaking of his own knowledge, would not fall within the

meaning of witness/complainant . With utmost respect, if a fact is

capable of being heard which discloses a commission of offence and is heard by any person like attorney, how he could be precluded to

become complainant or witness before the Court, when Article 71 of

the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 recognizes it as evidence. In the

criminal regime of law, sometimes person who is not the eye-witness

though is closely related to the deceased or injured when heard about

commission of offence, not only becomes the complainant, but can

give evidence on behalf of an eye-witness if he is unable to appear

before the Court. Third Proviso to Article 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat

Order, 1984 authorizes the witness to appoint his attorney to depose

on his behalf before the court. Said proviso is as under;

Provided further that, if a witness is dead, or cannot be found or has

become incapable of giving evidence, or his attendance cannot,

be procured without an amount of delay or expense which

under the circumstances of the case the Court regards as

unreasonable, a party shall have the right to produce shahada

ala al shahadah by which a witness can appoint two witnesses to

depose on his behalf, except in the case of Hudood.

Similarly, sections 205 and 540A of the Code also facilitate the

accused to appear before the Court through his pleader in a criminal

case, and as per definition of pleader he could be an attorney of

person as well subject to permission by the Court. Appearance through

pleader in a situation when accused is to go abroad for earning

livelihood was also sanctioned by this Court through case reported as

Rai Muhammad Aslam v. Additional Sessions Judge and others (PLD

2025 Lah. 405).

12. Even there is no apparent bar for filing of private complaint by

any person that does include an attorney, before a Magistrate with a

view to his taking cognizance of an offence committed within his area

of jurisdiction, in the light of section 4(h) read with section 190 of the

Code except in offences mentioned in sections 195, 196, 196A, 197, 198

198A, 199, 199A and 199B of the Code or if any prohibition is contained

in any special law. Such view is also supported by a judgment of

Supreme Court of India reported as Vishwa Mitter v. O.P. Poddar (1984

AIR (SC) 5).

13. It is desirable to pin that criminal administration of justice

cannot dispense justice through a judge or court alone, rather it has

introduced certain measures which may include appointment of Bailiff

(under sections 491,552 of the Code), appointment of Jury (Section 138

of the Code), local inquiry (Section 148 of the Code) and Commission

for the examination of witnesses (Section 503 of the Code), which

impliedly means that court also acts through attorney. Thus, concept is

inherent in criminal justice system. Moreso, Mirza Mazhar Baig is an

overseas Pakistani and Government is also committed to attend the genuine grievances of overseas Pakistanis with a speedy way out to

save their property and life of their children. In this respect The

Punjab Overseas Pakistani Commission Act 2021 has also been

promulgated. Under section 7 of such Act, Overseas Commissioner is

required to process the complaint of an overseas Pakistani to the

concerned government agency or the committee for redressal. In such

situation understanding is clear that for follow up, an attorney of

overseas Pakistani can join the proceedings.

14. Depending upon the above discussion, it is held that an attorney

of a person can lodge an FIR with the police and can also initiate

criminal proceedings before a Court for the interest of his Principal. If

the proceedings before the court were initiated by the principal, and

he becomes unavailable or incapacitated, the attorney can also

continue it on his behalf with the permission of the Court. Court

should also encourage such practice keeping in view the hardships

involved in the case to reduce delays in the criminal process which

would restore the confidence of public on the courts of law for

acquisition or regulation of their rights. There is no doubt that Court

shall decide the matter on production of relevant evidence only that

can also be recorded by using modern techniques like through online

applications. Misuse of process by attorney, through registration of

false FIR or filing of private complaint, can well be met through sound

remedial measures including action pursuant to sections 181, 182, 211,

213 and 250 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Thus, contention of

learned counsel for the petitioners that FIR cannot be registered

through attorney is nothing but farce.

15. On merits, case against the petitioners has been attended; the

alleged agreement to sell was sent to PFSA for comparison of

signatures of Mirza Mazhar Baig over it with his authentic signatures

available at different documents, which returned with an expert

opinion as under;

After careful examination and comparison of Questioned Signatures

on item No. 1.1 using Video Spectral Comparator (VSC-6000,

Software version 6.6), it is concluded that Questioned Signatures

on item No. 1.1 are non-genuine and have been produced by

manipulative technique such as tracing.

The above report coupled with the fact that both the petitioners

during investigation were found involved in commission of offence.

They were in league with each other and have prepared a forged

agreement to sell to usurp the property of Mirza Mazhar Baig. Thus,

petitioners have no case on merit. This is pre-arrest bail and there is

no apparent mala fide against the petitioners. Their false implication

is not spurred out from the record. The concession of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief, which is meant only for innocent persons

where the intended arrest of an accused is found to be actuated with

mala fide on part of the complainant or the police. I have not seen any

malice or ulterior motive on part of the complainant to falsely

implicate petitioners, therefore, they are not entitled to the extra-

ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail as claimed for. Reliance is placed on a

case reported as Gulshan Ali Solangi and others v. The State through

P.G. Sindh (2020 SCMR 249). Reliance is further placed on the case

reported as Ahtisham Ali v. The State (2023 SCMR 975), wherein it has

been held that:-

It is well settled exposition of law that the grant of pre-arrest bail is

an extraordinary relief which may be granted in extraordinary

situations to protect the liberty of innocent persons in cases

lodged with mala fide intention to harass the person with

ulterior motives. By all means, while applying for pre-arrest bail,

the petitioner has to satisfy the Court with regard to the basic

conditions quantified under section 497 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1898 ( Cr.P.C ) vis- -vis the existence of reasonable

grounds to confide that he is not guilty of the offence alleged

against him and the case is one of further inquiry.

16. Thus, petitioners could not satisfy the court that they are entitled to

be granted pre-arrest bail within the contemplation of sections 497/498 of

the Code. In view of the above, both these petitions stand dismissed and

ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby

recalled.

17. Before concluding this order, the Court acknowledges with

appreciation the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Balal Munir,

Research Officer, whose diligent efforts enabled the Court to access the

latest available law on the subject.

MH/Y-2/L Application dismissed.