against each other in several proceedings and, therefore, the allegations leveled in the first information report are mala fide; (b) that the document in respect of which fabrication/forgery is alleged, is a document set up for defence in case crime no. 168 of 2016 and its veracity is therefore sub judice, inasmuch as, in case crime no. 168 of 2016 a charge sheet has been submitted on which court has taken cognizance therefore, once cognizance has been taken on the charge sheet, it is that court which shall deal with it and it would not be proper for the investigating agency to ascertain its veracity while the matter is sub judice; and (c) that the medical prescription (parcha), though, may be claimed to be forged but there is no material to suggest that the registration number and form number mentioned in the medical prescription (parcha), dated 8.2.2016, was not found in the records of the hospital concerned therefore, even assuming that the signature of the doctor, who, purportedly, signed on the medical prescription is forged, it cannot be said that by using said medical prescription (parcha), the accused committed any offence because it would have to be proved that the medical prescription (parcha) was either forged by the accused themselves or the accused used the same while knowing it to be forged.
