' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings initiated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment against the petitioner on an application submitted by respondent No,1.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1, the nephew of one Muhammad Aslam filed an application with the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, questioning the legality of Mutation No,1803 entered on the basis of oral sale in favor of the petitioner, alleging fraud committed by the petitioner with the active connivance of the revenue field staff. Enquiry was initiated but on withdrawal of the application, the enquiry was dropped. The petitioner has again been summoned by the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel inter alia contended that the matter stood finally decided by D.D.O. (R).
Okara vide order, dated 4-10-2005 whereby the disputed mutation stood restored which even otherwise was a civil dispute and that the matter having been finally settled by the Revenue Authorities, continuation of proceedings by the Anti-Corruption Establishment was unwarranted.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General on instructions from respondent No,5-Circle Officer contended that the enquiry had been finalized in which the petitioner was found to be implicated in the crime and, therefore, registration of F.I.R. Had been recommended and that even otherwise the writ petition was not maintainable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and the learned A.A.-G. And have gone through the record.
6. It has been noticed that the petitioner has called in question the enquiry proceedings initiated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment on the application of respondent No,1 which stands finalized on the basis of material produced before it. This Court, in the first place, cannot interfere in the inquisitorial exercise being conducted by an investigating agency and secondly the determination of the validity or otherwise of the allegations entails resolution of controversial questions of fact which exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The argument that since the matter has been finally settled by the Revenue Authorities and, therefore, the proceedings being conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment are unwarranted, has no force.
Determination of a dispute by Revenue Authorities can by no means wipe out the criminal liability of a person, who on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency, is prima facie found to be implicated in the crime. The other argument, that the matter is essentially one of civil nature and, therefore, continuation of proceedings by the investigating agency is uncalled for, is also devoid of any force. Civil as well as criminal proceedings can continue side by side as they both relate to different laws and can be instituted simultaneously. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court as to the maintainability of the writ petition.
7. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.