' M. BILAL KHAN, J.-The petitioner Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Hayat seeks quashing of F.I.R.
No,368 of' 2006 dated . 6-6-2006, for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, read with section 109, P.P.G. And F.I.R. No, 381 of 2006 for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, S-Town District Sargodha- at the instance of Syed Ghulam Abbas, Advocate.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is motivated by malice; in support 'of his claim of ownership in property, he is relying on Fard-e-Malkiat which is a dubious document; ' that electricity meters had been installed as far back as in the year 1982 in the name of Muhammad Aslam, and in the year 2001 in the name of Muhammad Ashraf; that the long silence of the complainant for almost two decades is a proof of the malice of the complainant who is bent upon dispossessing the petitioner from the property; that in fact one criminal transaction has been bifurcated into two so as to cause harassment to the petitioner and his entire family and that no inquiry had been held before registration of the F.I.R.
3. On the other hand Mr. Hassam Qadir Shah, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner; that the contentions raised on his behalf belong to the realm of factual inquiry and this Court while seized of a constitutional petition cannot undertake such an exercise; that challans in both F.I.Rs, Nos;368 of 2006 and 381 of 2006 had been submitted before the learned trial Court as far back as on 2-7-2006, and 3-8-2006, respectively and therefore, it was for the trial Court to decide the cases.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate- General also opposed this petition for quashing the F.I.R. And submitted that allowing the petition for quashing the F.I.R. Would amount to stifling the prosecution case which would not be appropriate.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I tend to agree with Mr. Hassam Qadir Shah, the learned counsel for the complainant that in order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner a factual inquiry needs to be undertaken. The Honourable apex Court has time and again disapproved quashing of criminal proceedings/F.I.Rs, at preliminary stage. Only in the current year i.e, calendar year 2006 the Honourable apex Court in as many as three cases expressed its disapproval of such a practice. Reference may be made to the cases of "Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others" 2006 SCM R 276, "Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others" 2006 SCM R 512 and "Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 Others" 2006 SCM R 1957. The petitioner does not deny that challans have been submitted and that he is appearing before the learned trial Court. In this backdrop the trial Court is the best forum where the petitioner can agitate all his grievances. Even otherwise despite repeated queries of the Court the petitioner has failed to explain as to how he came to possession the property in dispute.
There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.