.2007 P Cr. L J 864
[Lahore]
Before M. Bilal Khan, J
MUHAMMAD BASHIR alias BAKOLA and 8 others----Petitioners
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY DIVISION, LAHORE and 9 others ----Respondents
Writ Petition No.11676 of 2006, decided on 14th February, 2007.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/468/471---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F..I.R., refusal of---Investigation of the case was still pending---High Court in a bail application filed by an accused had directed the Investigating Officer to send certain documents for the opinion of Handwriting Expert---No interference at such stage of investigation in its process was called for---Practice of quashing of the F.I.Rs. when the case involved controversial questions of law and fact was not approved---Contentions raised by the petitioners needed factual inquiry which could not be resorted to by High Court while seized of a Constitutional petition---Section 195(1)(c) did not place any embargo against registration of case---Taking of cognizance and recording of F.I:R. being two separate concepts were not to be intermingled---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others 2006 SCMR 1192; Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others 2006 SCMR 1957 and Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan and others v. Mian Asim Fareed and others 2006 SCMR 483 ref.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art. 199---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Quashing of F.I.R.---Practice of quashing of F.I.R. when the case involves controversial questions of law and fact was not approved.
Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others 2006 SCMR 1192 and Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others 2006 SCMR 1957 ref.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
---Ss. 195(1)(c) & 154---Intent and import---Section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. does not place any embargo against registration of case---Taking of cognizance and recording of F.I.R. are two separate concepts which are not to be intermingled.
Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan and others v. Mian Asim Fareed and others 2006 SCMR 483 ref.
Dr. A. Basit for Petitioners.
Tahir Mehmood Gondal, Asstt. A.-G. for the State.
?Mian Gauhar Rafique for Respondent No.4.
Akhtar Hussain, S.-I. Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore with police file.
ORDER
M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- The petitioners, nine in number, seek quashing of F.I.R. No.1231 of 2006 dated 14-10-2006, registered with Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C.
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Iftikhar?-ud-Din son of Shah Din, the complainant, was that on 16-5-1973 he had purchased a parcel of land measuring 4 Kanals, 5 Marlas and 92-1/2 sq. ft. from one Chiragh Din son of Ameer Din caste Arain for a total consideration of Rs.25,500 and had taken over possession from The vendor; the land was mutated in his favour vide Mutation No.5473 on 25-6-1973 and the marginal witness of the sale-deed was Khushi Muhammad Lumberdar, a real brother of Muhammad Bashir alias Bakola (petitioner No.l); that he (complainant) had been involved in litigation regarding the plot in question with Evacuee Trust Property Board, in various Courts of law for about twenty-six years; after the Supreme Court had remanded the case, Mr. Justice Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, of the Lahore High Court decided the case on 31-10-2001; that the accused persons mentioned at serial Nos.1 to 16 of the F.I.R. had neither produced the registered sale-deed in any Court nor had they become parties in the litigation; that Muhammad Bashir alias Bakola, Muhammad Adnan, Muhammad Rizwan, Muhammad Imran, Muhammad Nazeer alias Jeera, Muhammad Shaaban alias Jaggu sons of Muhammad Bashir, Rana Abdullah Advocate, in consultation with one another got a forged deed prepared through one Rizwan Butt alias Pappi son of Ijaz Butt wherein signatures of Chiragh Din had been forged; the said forged deed was document No.16226, Book No.1, Volume No.563 registered on 23-12-1972; the said deed was got registered in connivance with Chiragh son of Nathu Khan, Muhammad Ibrahim son of Karam Din and Ghulam Hussain son of Jamal Din for a consideration of Rs.1,000; on the basis of this forged registered sale-deed one Muhammad Irfan manoeuvred a fake power of attorney in his favour purported to have been executed by Shafqat Hameed Sheikh; thereafter Muhammad Irfan filed a suit on behalf of Shafqat Hameed, her brothers Sheikh Shahid, Shahzad Hameed, sons of Sheikh Abdul Hameed and Mst. Shazia Aafaq in a civil Court at Lahore; in the said suit the signatures of Shafqat Hameed, etc. (plaintiffs) had not been obtained but fraudulently Muhammad Irfan signed on their behalf; address of the plaintiffs had also not been correctly mentioned in the suit; that the accused persons in connivance with one another and by committing fraud got the said civil suit decreed in their favour ex parte on 17-7-2006; the complainant applied for a' certified copy of the decree but the same has not been provided to him; that the "Qabza Group" wants to deprive the complainant of his property worth crores of rupees and has forcibly occupied the said property. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.
3. In support of this petition for quashing the F.I.R., it has been argued that the sale-deed, in relation to which the offence is stated to have taken place has already been produced before a Civil Court which has proceeded to issue a declaratory decree with consequential relief; that as the document in question has been produced before a Civil Court, no criminal Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the matter for the purpose of trial unless a written complaint is made to the Civil Court before whom the document in question was produced; that the registration of F.I.R. is in violation of mandatory provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C.; that any investigation on the basis of F.I.R. in violation of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. would be infructuous and without any legal value; that Capital City Police Officer, Lahore had no jurisdiction to order registration of case in that, if the S.H.O. had refused to register a case the proper course for the complainant was to seek relief under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C.; that it can easily be gathered from the contents of the F.I.R. that a civil suit has been transformed into a criminal liability so as to obtain advantage in the pending civil litigation.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant argued that criminal action can proceed simultaneously with a civil suit; that the investigation is still in progress and quashing the case at initial stage would amount to stilling the prosecution case.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General also opposed the prayer made in this petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at limine stage and have perused the available record.
7. The investigation is still pending and I am told that while hearing bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous No.9582/B of 2006) filed by Muhammad Bashir (petitioner No.1) my brother M.A. Shahid Siddiqui, J. had asked the Investigating Officer to send certain documents for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. Any interference by this Court with the process of investigation at this stage is not called for. The Honourable Supreme Court in its latest pronouncements in the case of Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others 2006 SCMR 1192 and Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Sycd Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others 2006 SCMR 1957 has deprecated the practice of quashing of the F.I.Rs when the case involves controversial questions of law and fact. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners a factual inquiry needs to be undertaken which cannot be resorted to by this Court while seized of a constitutional petition. Section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. does not place any embargo against registration of case. In this connection reference may profitably be made to the case of Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan and others v. Mian Asim Fareed and others 2006 SCMR 483 where the Honourable Supreme Court once again reiterated that taking of cognizance and recording of F.I.R. are two separate concepts which are not to be intermingled. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine petition dismissed
0 Comments