📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involves a family dispute over property. The respondent (a woman) had filed a partition suit, claiming a share in property presumably as a widow. The petitioner, in her written statement responding to the suit, argued that the respondent had actually been divorced by her husband before his death, by mutual consent—meaning she would have no claim to inherit as a widow. Faced with this claim, the respondent withdrew her partition suit rather than contest it.
The petitioner then went further: she asked the trial court to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that the respondent had lied to the court by falsely claiming to be the deceased's widow in order to get a share of the property.
Both the trial court and the appellate court refused to initiate such proceedings. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, asking it to overturn these refusals.
The High Court dismissed the petition. It explained that Section 476 uses the word "may," meaning courts have discretion whether to prosecute someone for making a false claim—it's not mandatory. Since the lower courts had already exercised this discretion (choosing not to prosecute) based on the case's circumstances, the High Court said it could not simply substitute its own opinion for theirs under its constitutional writ powers.
This case matters because it clarifies that courts have discretionary power in such matters, and higher courts should respect that discretion rather than freely overturning it.
یہ مقدمہ جائیداد کے حوالے سے ایک خانگی تنازعہ سے متعلق ہے۔ مدعا علیہ (ایک خاتون) نے تقسیم جائیداد کا دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا، جس میں وہ بظاہر بیوہ کی حیثیت سے جائیداد میں حصے کی دعویدار تھی۔ درخواست گزار نے اپنے تحریری جواب میں اس دعوے کے جواب میں یہ موقف اختیار کیا کہ مدعا علیہ کو، اس کے شوہر کی وفات سے پہلے، باہمی رضامندی سے طلاق دی جا چکی تھی، یعنی وہ بیوہ کے طور پر وراثت میں کسی حصے کی حق دار نہیں تھی۔ اس دعوے کا سامنا ہونے پر مدعا علیہ نے مقدمہ لڑنے کے بجائے اپنا تقسیم جائیداد کا دعویٰ واپس لے لیا۔
درخواست گزار نے اس سے بھی آگے بڑھ کر ٹرائل کورٹ سے استدعا کی کہ ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 476 کے تحت مدعا علیہ کے خلاف فوجداری کارروائی شروع کی جائے، اس بنیاد پر کہ مدعا علیہ نے جائیداد میں حصہ حاصل کرنے کے لیے خود کو متوفی کی بیوہ ظاہر کر کے عدالت سے جھوٹ بولا تھا۔
ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلیٹ کورٹ د
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
Constitutional petition --- Registration of criminal case --- Respondent filed suit for partition against petitioner --- petitioner in her written statement controverted allegations levelled by respondent in the plaint contending that respondent/ plaintiff had been divorced by her husband before his death with mutual consent of parties – Respondent in view of contents of written statement, withdrew her claim ---- Petitioner filed an application before Trial Court under S. 476, Cr. P. C. to initiate proceedings against respondent as she had made a false statement and false claim before the Court in contents of plaint --- Said application of petitioner having been dismissed by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court petitioner had filed Constitutional petition alleging that both courts below had erred in law to dismiss her application and said dismissal order was not in consonance with law laid down by Superior Courts --- Word “may” occurring in S. 476, Cr. P. C. had been used for taking cognizance of offence and trying same by the Court which had indicated that it was the discretion of the Court to proceed against a person who had made wrong claim before the Court in the contents of the plaint --- Both Courts below had refused to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner keeping in view the circumstances of case --- Constitutional petition was not maintainable --- High Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of finding of Tribunal below while exercising power under Art. 199 of the Constitution.