' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.-Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 14-4-1996 petitioner and one Barkat Ali who is not petitioner in this case entered into agreement to sell with Sh. Lai Din respondent No,4 for the purchase of land measuring 2 Kanals, 16 Marlas situated in Mauza Amar Sindhu Tehsil and District Lahore Cantt. In the sum of Rs,9,52,000 out of which Rs,5,52,000 were paid; that on refusal of Sh. Lai Din to get the sale-deed registered in favour of petitioner and other mentioned above, petitioner had filed a civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction on 11-10-2004; that Sh. Lai Din filed reply before the civil Court in which he admitted to have entered into agreement to sell with the petitioner and others and stated therein that as the petitioner had not approached him within time for execution of sale-deed so he refused to get registered the sale-deed regarding the said land; that Sh. Lai Din on 3-9-2004 had also filed a civil suit for cancellation of above -said agreement to sell; that both the suits are pending before the same Court; that respondent No,4 in connivance with other respondents made an ante-dated agreement to sell in favour of respondent No, 3 namely Muhammad Akbar; that copy of said agreement is C.1, in the said agreement it was mentioned by Sh.. Lai Din that he had handed over possession of said land to Muhammad Akbar but the agreement which was executed between Lai Din and Muhammad Akbar respondent No,3, the land is not 2 Kanals, 16 Marlas but it is more than 3 Kanals; that respondent No,4 also executed general power of attorney in favour of respondent No,3, the said general power of attorney is dated 2-8-2006; that on the basis of said general power of attorney respondent No,3 Muhammad Akbar got the sale-deed executed in favour of his brother Muhammad Sarwar respondent No,8; that registered sale-deed was produced before the Sub Registrar; that the petitioner when came to know about the said registered sale-deed which was produced for registration before the Sub-Registrar, he appeared before the Sub-Registrar, argued his case that in fact said land was sold to him by Sh. Lai Din on 14-4-1996 through an agreement to sell; that D.D.O. (Registration) refused to register the said sale-deed; that thereafter petitioner filed an application for registration of a case against respondents Nos.3 to 10; that respondent No,l refused to get a case registered against the above said respondents then petitioner filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before respondent No, 2; that after 13/14 adjournments respondent No,2 called a report from concerned police station; that a report was submitted by respondent No, 1 to the effect that forgery has been committed by respondents Nos.3 to 10 and they are ready to register a case but respondent No,2 refused to order for registration of the case but also passed an order to the effect that petitioner if so, advised may file a private complaint before the competent forum; that on the filing of instant writ petition, this Court summoned the report and parawise comments and facts mentioned therein are the same which were submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge; that in the Revenue Record Lai Din who is originally owner of 2 Kanals and 16 Marlas, he is not owner of more than that land but he had entered the agreement to sell with Muhammad Akbar respondent No,3; that police is duty bound to register a case in accordance with law.
2. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No, 8 Muhammad Sarwar submits that instant writ petition is not maintainable; that contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that agreement to sell was executed between Sh. Lai Din and petitioner and his friend Barkat Ali, on the other hand this agreement to sell in favour of petitioner only entitles him right to file a civil suit and not right of ownership; that if the ownership does not confer on the petitioner then he is not an aggrieved party; that petitioner had filed civil suit in 2004 on the basis of said agreement which claims to have been executed on 14-4-1996, if said agreement to sell is found to be bogus one then it will be barred under section 195-C, Cr.P.G. And only Civil Court has jurisdiction after hearing and recording the evidence to order for registration of the case; that offence under section 463, P.P.C, is non- cognizable so the police has no authority to register the case against any person; that in order to pressurize the respondents, this petition has been filed before this Court, so Sh. Lai Din be forced to sell the land to the petitioner; that agreement on the basis of general power of attorney is executed, is not forged one and no forgery has been committed; that no criminal case can be registered on the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has relied upon 1982 Law Notes of SC 676; that petitioner has got alternate remedy to file private complaint and he has relied upon PLJ 2004 SC 288.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No,3 submits that after dismissal for petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C., petitioner filed a petition before D.I.-G., police for registration of the case and this fact has been concealed in the present petition; that D.I.-G. Police had stated that no cognizable offence is made out; that petitioner had filed suit against respondent No, 4 prior to application of the petitioner for registration of the case; that petitioner had also filed application under section 1(10), C.P.C., for impleading him as party in that suit.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No, 10 submits that no right of petitioner has been infringed for the reasons that in all there was 6 Kanals of land out of which 2 Kanals, 16 Marlas had been sold to the present petitioner according to the agreement to sell and 3 Kanals land has been sold to Muhammad Akbar respondent No,3; that civil litigation is pending between the parties; that Muhammad Akbar respondent No,3 had also filed a suit for specific performance against Lai Din for enforcement of agreement executed between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Lai Din submits that Lai Din respondent had not committed any offence and he had filed suit for cancellation of agreement to sell which was executed between petitioner and Lai Din prior to the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of said agreement and that no petition regarding the status quo has been filed before the civil Court.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No, 9 submits that he is pro forma respondent and he has to do nothing with this case.
7. Learned Additional Advocate- General has also summoned Abdul Hamid Patwari Halqa so that the correct position be brought on record. Learned Additional A.-G. After getting instructions from said Patwari submits that in all Lai Din was owner of 14 Kanals, 11 Marlas, he sold 8 Kanals, 12 Marlas to different people in the shape of 2 Marlas and 5 Marlas, on one Kanal he had constructed his own house, he had also left 1 Kanal, 14 Marlas for the streets/passages, rest land is 3 Kanals but he had sold 2 Kanals, 16 Marlas to the petitioner and 3 Kanals to Muhammad Akbar respondent No,3; that the allegation which has been raised by learned, counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the civil suit between Lai Din and petitioner, Lai Din had entered into agreement to sell with Muhammad Akbar respondent which is ante-dated and that agreement has been produced before the civil Court; that if civil Court after recording of evidence comes to the conclusion that said agreement, to sell between Lai Din and Muhammad Akbar is ante-dated then he should order for registration of the case as required under section 195-C, P.P.C. And a direction by this Court cannot be given.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. As far as agreements between the parties are concerned, those have not been denied. The only question which has been agitated before me is that agreement to sell between petitioner and Lai Din was executed but in the said agreement as date was given that petitioner shall pay remaining amount and get the sale-deed registered but the petitioner could not do so, on which Lai Din filed a suit for cancellation of said agreement to sell on 3-9-2004 while the petitioner has filed suit for specific performance on 11-10-2004.
9. Taking into consideration above said fact I am of the considered opinion that no case for direction by this Court is made out. This petition stands disposed of.