' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this quashment petition, contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is totally false as no offence has been committed; that the land in question was Hindu property which was given to Ahl-e-Islam for the construction of mosque which was constructed, that the entries in the Revenue Record are bogus and in this regard he would like to refer to Religious Endowment Act, Land Record Mannual, Land Administration Mannual, Tenancy Act and Local Government Ordinance; that since 1911-12 the entry in Revenue Record is of Ahi-e-Islam; that the occupancy rights of Muhammad Fazal etc. Had come to an end but the Patwari in connivance with them changed the Revenue Record in 1978 dishonestly; that according to the Land Record Mannual if land of a mosque was declared as a waqf property before 1947 that cannot be registered in the name of any other person; that respondent had made a statement in a declaratory suit in 1981 to the effect that he was tenant in the shop of the mosque in question; that except Patwari, no other senior Revenue Officer had signed as the property was within the municipal limits; that the offence is non-cognizable; that the Waqf is always a Waqf and that in support of the afore-referred submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 2000 SCMR 1904, 1997 MLD 2097, PLD 1978 Lahore 307, 1990 PCr.LJ 97, 1986 PCr.LJ 1218, PLD 1967 Dhaka 1, PLD 1957 SC 111, 1993 SCMR 21, 1990 SCMR 25, PLD 2001 SC 149, PLD 2004 SC 271, 2000 SCMR 695, 1991 SCMR 2206, PLD 1954 (Revenue) Punjab 10, PLD 1986 Lah.275, PLD 1991 SC 586 and PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lahore 824.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.9 to 21 submits that the learned counsel for the petitioner himself is a purchaser of a shop from the same Khasra No,836, from the same persons and on the basis of same occupancy rights who has also filed a suit for possession during the pendency of this writ petition qua the same property; that many other persons have also purchased land from the same Khasra number; that no declaration can be made qua entries in the Revenue Record because those were not challenged before any higher Revenue Authority; that the impugned order is a legal one because as per police forgery was made; that the police has found the accused guilty and that since disputed questions of fact have been raised in this petition, so, it is liable to be dismissed.
3. Muhammad Riaz, S.I., who has appeared before this Court along with the record, submits that as per Rafique S.I./I.O. Signatures of Naseer are bogus on the rent deed and the shop in question was purchased by the respondents from a person who had a power of attorney from the real owner.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, while rendering assistance, submits that disputed questions of facts are involved in this petition so factual inquiry cannot be undertaken in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Lengthy arguments have been heard from the learned counsel of the respective parties. The main question involved in this petition is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was competent to order registration of the impugned F.I.R. And whether this Court can go into disputed questions of facts argued before this Court? Perusal of the police file shows that as per Rafique, S.I./I.O. Signatures of Naseer are bogus on the rent deed and the shop in question was purchased by the respondents from a person who had a power of attorney from the real owner and the accused were found guilty during the course of investigation. Moreover, investigation in this case is complete. Disputed questions of facts have been raised before this Court which exercise cannot be undertaken in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court because this Court cannot assume the role of an Investigator. It is settled by now up to the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that factual controversy cannot be gone into in a constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court and it is the prerogative and privilege of the trial Court to examine the witnesses of both the parties. In this regard reliance is placed on Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCMR 276), Muhammad Asghar v. The State (PLD 2006 SC 326), Faiz Bakhsh and others v. Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, Bahawalpur and other (2006 SCMR 219), Haji Muhammad Sadiq v. Illaqa Magistrate Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad and others (2001 PCr.LJ 1571), Khairuddin v. Settlement Commissioner (1988 SCMR 988) and Muhammad Ali v. Govermnent of Sindh (1986 CLC 1123). So, the S.I. Present in Court is directed to submit the challan of this case before the learned trial Court within a week from today. As far as another prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to have a verdict from this Court qua the entries made in the Revenue Record is concerned, the said prayer cannot be entertained for the reasons, firstly, that no order of the Revenue Court has been assailed before this Court and, secondly, those entries were never challenged before any Revenue Officer. The precedent case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and is not applicable in this case. In the afore-referred circumstances, this petition is hereby dismissed having no merit.