Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 PCrLJ 638
Court / Jurisdiction: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Parties: Mirza Yahya Baig vs StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Amjad RafiqS.M. Zeeshan Mirza
This judicial decision was delivered by the LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE. The matter involves proceedings between Mirza Yahya Baig and StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Amjad RafiqS.M. Zeeshan Mirza, officially reported as 2026 PCrLJ 638. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
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…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.