' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of case F.I.R. No,6 dated 22-6-2004 for offences under sections 471, 420 and 468 P.P.C. And under section 5(2) 47 of P.C.A.
Registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Mianwali.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by Sher Khan complainant with the Anti-Corruption Establishment against the petitioner and his co-accused Maqbool Anwar Patwari who as per allegation mentioned therein, purchased some land in Mauza Tola Managli, Tehsil Eisa Khel, District Mianwali, vide Mutation No,434 dated 19-8-1996 from one Muhammad Anwar pertaining to Khewats Nos.387, 388, 391, 439 and 442. It was alleged that Khewat No,344 was not included in the above said mutation and Misal-e-Haqiat relating to Khewat No,344 had been prepared 12 years prior thereto in 1984-85. The accused-Patwari illegally entered the name of the petitioner in the said Misal-e-Haqiat by cutting the names of the complainant and his relatives..
After preliminary inquiry, the aforementioned F.I.R. Was registered against the petitioner and his co- accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Are absolutely false and based on malafides, as in fact a civil revision pertaining to the same matter has been filed by the petitioner which is pending before this Court; that the petitioner is an uneducated person who had no knowledge about the entries made in the Revenue Record and without holding any inquiry into the matter, the aforementioned case was instituted against him and that the aforementioned F.I.R. Does not disclose commission of any offence having been committed by the petitioner, therefore, the same merits to be quashed.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General contends that the matter involves disputed questions of facts which cannot be resolved in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Further states that mere pendency of the civil suit or a civil matter is no bar to the criminal proceedings which can continue side by side.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. A report was called for from the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Mianwali by this Court, which reveals that during the investigation the petitioner and his co-accused joined the proceedings and denied the allegations levelled against them. The co-accused of the petitioner categorically stated that the alleged cuttings and changes in the Misal-e-Hiqiat were not in his handwriting and the matter was, therefore, referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory for verification. According to the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory bearing No, 1785 dated 4-5-2005, the questioned writings were found similar to the specimen writings of the accused-Patwari. As a final outcome of the indepth investigation the competent authority vide order dated 30-6-2005 had approved judicial action against both the accused i.e, the petitioner and Maqbool Anwar Patwari, however, the challan was not submitted on account of the pendency of the instant writ petition.
7. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as report submitted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Mianwali, it is abundantly clear that the case against the petitioner and his co-accused is based on facts prima facie established on the record. The civil litigation referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner pending between the parties has no relevance to the allegations of fraud and forgery against the petitioner and his co-accused. The alleged interpolation i.e, illegal changes in the Misal-e-Haqiat is established on the record through the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory. It cannot be denied that the petitioner is the beneficiary of unauthorized cuttings in the revenue record.
8. It is a well settled principle of law that during a transaction if a criminal liability is spelt out, there is no bar under the law of the two proceedings i.e, civil as well as criminal continuing side by side as both relate to different laws. Reliance is placed on the case of Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others (2006 SCM R 512) wherein it has been observed by their lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court that there is no bar under the law to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously. It is clear from the facts that the case is not one of conversion of civil dispute into a criminal liability but the facts and circumstances spell out commission of criminal offences committed by the petitioner and his co-accused.
9. Since the investigation is continuing in the matter and the challan could not be submitted due to the pendency of the instant petition, as such this Court cannot control or interfere in the same as the investigation is the sole prerogative of the Investigating Agency. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Brig. Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior Division, Islamabad and others (1994 SCM R 2142) and Mst. Shahnaz Begun v. The Honourable Judges of the Sindh and Balochistan High Courts and others (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,2 in the F.I.R. Are baseless or motivated solely out of malice. In the latest pronouncement, C the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v.
Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCM R 276) has held that quashment of F.I.R. Would amount to short-circuiting the normal procedure of law as provided under Cr.P.C. And the Police Rules and that the accused has more than one alternate remedy available to him under the law.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition is without any merit which is dismissed and the quashment of F.I.R. No,6 dated 22-6-2004 for offences under section 471, 420 and 468, P.P.C. And under section 5(2)47 of PCA, registered at Police Station A.C.E., Mianwali, is declined.
There shall be no order as to costs.