' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioners seek quashment of case F.I.R.
No,304/2004 dated 23-9-2005 for offences under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant of the F.I.R. Who is the real sister of the petitioner lodged the aforementioned F.I.R. On the allegations that the petitioner along with other accused had forged her thumb-impressions and fabricated false and fictitious agreement to sell dated 6-1-1999 in order to deprive her of land measuring 50 Kanals situated in Chak No,58/12-L, Chichawatni.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner on the basis of the agreement to sell executed by respondent No,3 the complainant of the F.I.R. Has filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction which is pending adjudication in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Hayat, Civil Judge Chichawatni, District Sahiwal and since the disputed agreement to sell was filed by the petitioner before the Civil Court as such no independent F.I.R. Could be lodged by respondent No,3 as in that eventuality it was for the learned Court to direct registration of a case under section 195, Cr.P.C. Further contends that the application filed by respondent No,3 with the learned Civil Court for registration of a criminal case against the petitioner was dismissed and this fact was concealed by respondent No,3 in the application filed with the learned Justice of Peace under section 22-A, CrP.C. For seeking a direction for registration of case. Further contends that the petitioner is innocent in the case and that the story narrated in the F.I.R. Is already subject- matter of pleadings of the parties in the Civil Court where the trial is pending adjudication. Also submits that the alleged offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Are not cognizable offences and, therefore, criminal case could not have been registered without the permission of the learned Illaqa Magistrate while relying on the case of Abdul Haleem v. The State and others 1982 SCM R 988 has argued that since the dispute between the parties was pending before the learned Civil Court as such, the criminal proceedings ought to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,3 has argued that the petitioner along with other co-accused forged and fabricated an agreement to sell to deprive the respondent of her valuable property and that the provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. Were not applicable to the instant case as the documents in question were forged prior to filing of the civil suit by the petitioner. Further submits that section 195 is only applicable if the forged document is tendered in the evidence at the trial. However, in the instant case, the said document was prepared by the petitioner and others on 6-1-1999 on the basis of which suit was filed on 13-9-2000. Further maintained that the proceedings in respect of criminal matters cannot be stayed as there is a bar in respect thereof under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Further submits that the civil proceedings as well as the criminal matter pertain to different laws and have to be decided on merits by different Court and that if the commission of an offence is made out, the civil as well as criminal proceedings can continue Side by side. Further states that offence under section 420, P.P.C. Being a cognizable offence, arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences were non-cognizable offences and a case could not be registered prior to the grant of permission by learned Magistrate is misconceived. While concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has maintained that partial quashment of the F.I.R. To the extent of the petitioner is being sought which is not permissible under the law.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General states that the Investigation is being conducted by the Superintendent of Police (Investigations) and at this stage it would not be appropriate to interfere in the investigation proceedings by way of quashment of the F.I.R.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. In the instant case the petitioner with the connivance and assistance of other accused has forged and fabricated an agreement to sell in respect of the land of respondent No,3 in order to deprive her for the same. A civil suit was filed by the petitioner in order to pre-empt criminal proceedings and to give the illegal act of fraud and forgery a complexion of a dispute of civil nature. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under section 195, Cr.P.C. It was only the trial Court which could direct registration of a criminal case is misconceived as the said section contemplates filing of a complaint by the trial Court on submission of a forged document in evidence by a party. In the instant case, the document was forged prior to the filing of the suit i,e, on 6-1-1999 whereas the suit was filed as a pre-emptive measure on 13-9-2000. The contents of the F.I.R. Reveal that the offences under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Are fully made out and section 420, P.P.C. Being a cognizable offence registration of criminal case by the police was in consonance with the law.
8. It is a well-settled principle of law that if during a transaction criminal liability is spelled out, there is no bar under the law of two proceedings civil as well as criminal continuing side by side as both relates to different laws. The dictum lay down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others 2006 SCM R 512 is fully attracted to the instant case as it has been observed in the said judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court that there is no bar under the law to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously. Further reliance is placed on the case of M. Aslam Zaheer v. Ch. Shah Muhammad and another 2003 SCM R 1691. It is clear from the facts of the case that it is not a case of conversion of a civil dispute into a criminal liability but the facts and the circumstances spell out commission of criminal offences by the petitioner and others. Further I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No,3 Mst. Safia Bibi that under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, there is a bar on stay of proceedings in criminal matters. Since the original document is being requisitioned for comparison of thumb-impressions by the Superintendent of Police (Investigations), the matter as to the veracity and authenticity of the document in question will be resolved once and for all.
9. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on the facts of the case. Even otherwise, the Honourable Supreme Court in the said judgment modified the orders of the High Court whereby the proceedings had been quashed.
10. Since the investigation is continuing in the matter as such, this Court cannot control or interfere in the same as the investigation is the sole prerogative of the investigating agencies. The Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCM R 2142 and Shahnaz Begum v.
The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677 has deprecated the interference of the High. Court in the process of investigation in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Prima facie the facts of the case do not disclose that the allegations levelled by respondent No,3 in the F.I.R. Are baseless or motivated solely out of malice. Reference is made to the case of Kamran Khan v. Station House Officer, Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala and 2 others 2005 PCr.LJ 825.
11. For what has been discussed above, the petition being without merit is dismissed and the quashment of the F.I.R. No,304/04 dated 23-9-2005 for offences under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station City Chichawatni, District Sahiwal is declined. There shall be no order as to costs.