' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 29-9-2005. Concluding para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "For the reasons noted above, it is clear that petitioner did not commit any cognizable offence in any of the four cases, which were got registered out of the civil dispute, in place of resort to civil Court. There is no ambiguity that all the four cases were an abuse of process of law and those cannot be allowed to continue in order to secure the ends of justice. All the four petitions, above noted, are consequently, accepted and registration of all the four cases, vide F.I.R. 372, dated 17-6- 2004 Police Station Satoo Katla, District Lahore, F.I.R. No,500 dated 22-6-2004, Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore, F.I.R. No,501, dated 22-6-2004, Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore and F.I.R. No,502 dated 22-6-2004, Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore, are declared to be illegal, void and of no legal effect and by quashing those, writ as prayed in all the four petitions is issued, with no order as to costs."
2. Marshalling of the facts in detail are not called for, except noting that the High Court vide impugned judgment, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan had quashed F.I.R. No,372, dated 17-6-2004, Police Station Satoo Katla, District Lahore, F.I.R. No,500, dated 22-6-2004, Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore, F.I.R. No,501, dated 22-6- 2004, Police 'Station Civil Lines, Lahore and F.I.R. No,502, dated 22-6-2004, Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore. In the instant proceedings the quashment to the extent of F.I.R. No,372 has been questioned.
As far as the quashment of other F.I.Rs, is concerned, it has not been challenged therefore, order will confine only to the F.I.R. Which relates to the petitioner/c omplainant.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent committed fraud by misusing the power of attorney and got transferred the land measuring 9 Kanals, 11 Marlas, out of which agreement to sell was only to the extent of 5 Kanals owned by Mst. Shahida Iqbal, whereas the remaining property was allegedly purchased by the respondent from the petitioner as back as in the year 1995 and statedly the agreement to sell of which has been entered in the year 1993, therefore, respondents were booked under sections 406/420/468/471, P.P.C. Investigation was going on when a writ petition was filed and the respondents succeeded in getting quashment of F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel stated that the High Court at the stage when the investigation is going on and matter has not been finalized concerning the submission of Challan against the accused, had no jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to quash the F.I.R. By discussing in detail the facts of the case, which were otherwise controverted.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent when confronted, stated that as no case was made out against the respondent, therefore, to save him from harassment, writ petition was filed which has been accepted by adopting the settled principle of law. As no injustice/prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution was proper.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the relevant material placed on record. It is to be noted that the learned High Court has to exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in view of the certain parameters laid down by the Constitution itself as well as by this Court from time to time. Undoubtedly the High Court is not supposed to enter into a factual controversy unless it is established that certain facts are not disputed between the parties. Prima facie, complainant alleged that respondent had committed fraud falling within mischief of sections 406/ 420/468/471, P.P.C. And the counter-claim has been put up by the respondent. According to him there was factual controversy between the parties, therefore, in such situation it was not fair to quash the F.I.R., which was under investigation and was at preliminary stage. It is also to be noted that besides availing the constitutional remedy there was also alternate remedy for the respondent by making application under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. After submission of Challan or by invoking the jurisdiction of the competent Courts under section 439, Cr.P.C. By invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. If need be. Surprisingly the jurisdiction of the High Court has been invoked without availing the appropriate remedies as pointed hereinabove.
7. As F.I.R. Has been quashed at a preliminary stage of investigation, therefore, it is bound to cause injustice/prejudice to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the opinion that impugned judgment is not sustainable.
8. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, impugned judgment, dated 29-9-2005 is set aside. Case is sent back to the Investigation Agency for conducting investigation and submitting Challan in accordance with law, if case is made out against the accused.
9. Needless to observe that if at a subsequent stage the respondents considered that they are entitled for acquittal they will be free to approach the Court, seized with the matter for the redressal of their grievance by invoking its jurisdiction and if such request is made, the Court shall dispose it of independently without being influenced in any manner from the impugned judgment or from the instant order.
10. Petition is converted into appeal and disposed of accordingly.