' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners seek quashment of case F.I.R. No,329 dated 25-5-2005 for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Sargodha, inter alia on the grounds that respondent No,2, the complainant of the F.I.R., was the owner of a Showroom and had agreed to sell the same in favour of petitioner No,1 for a consideration of Rs,15,00,000 and after receiving Rs,13,00,000 had executed an agreement to sell dated 1-10-2003. The balance amount of Rs,2,00,000 was to be paid till 1-4-2005 whereafter the sale-deed was to be executed but when the petitioner No, I contacted the said respondent for execution of the sale-deed, he refused to obliged the petitioner, who thereafter instituted a civil suit in the Civil Court at Sargodha which is pending adjudication and when the complainant came to know about the institution of the suit, he readily got the criminal case registered against the petitioners; that the F.I.R. Was silent as to the time and date of occurrence; that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Were ambiguous and did not constitute any offence; that the agreement in question was signed by the complainant and had been attested by the witnesses and that the matter being essentially one of a civil nature, the F.I.R. Deserved to be quashed.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2, the complainant, contended that the petitioner No,1 was the tenant of the complainant who had defaulted in payment of rent and thereafter the petitioners had prepared a forged and a fabricated agreement to sell, on the basis of which petitioner No,1 filed a civil suit against the complainant in order to avoid criminal liability; that civil as well as criminal proceedings could continue side by side; that the stamp vender Nasir Hussain was notorious in such-like matters as a number of F.I.Rs, stood registered against him; that the witnesses mentioned in the forged document were not even from the locality but belonged to a far flung area; and that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of cases has deprecated the quashment of F.I.Rs,, as such the petition merits to be dismissed.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that the complainant immediately lodged the F.I.R. On coming to know about the preparation of the said forged agreement to sell on being summoned by the Civil Court in the suit filed by petitioner No,1 and that the civil as well as criminal proceedings could continue side by side, as such the quashment of the F.I.R., as prayed for by the petitioners, was uncalled for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly, petitioner No,1 is a tenant in the showroom owned by the complainant regarding which he has prepared a false and fabricated agreement to sell, according to which, the complainant i.e, respondent No,2 had agreed to sell the said showroom to petitioner No,1 for a total consideration of Rs,15,00,000 and out of the total amount Rs,13,00,000 had been received by the complainant at the time of execution of the agreement and the balance amount of Rs,2,00,000 was to be paid by the petitioners after 1 1/2 year. The said agreement was filed with the plaint in the suit instituted by'petitioner No,1 against the complainant for specific performance of the agreement. On receipt of notice/summons from the Civil Court, the complainant came to know about the said forged document, who thereafter lodged the aforementioned F.I.R. Against the petitioners.
6. The entire exercise on the part of the petitioners appears to be based on malice with the sole purpose of delaying the eviction proceedings by complicating the issue through preparation of a forged and fabricated agreement to sell purportedly executed by the complainant. The suit in question was filed with a purpose to preempt criminal liability by giving it a complexion of a dispute of civil nature. Further, from the contents of the F.I.R. Offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Are prima facie made out and section 420, P.P.C. Being a cognizable offence, registration of the case by the police was, therefore in consonance with the law.
7. I agree with the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 that if during a transaction criminal liability is spelt out, as in the instant case, there is no bar under the law of the two proceedings, civil as well as criminal, continuing side by side as both relate to different laws. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others (2006 SCM R 512) and M. Aslam Zaheer v. Shah Muhammad (2000. SCMR 1619), has observed that there is no bar under the law to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously.
8. Further, it is clear from the facts of the case that it is not a case of conversion of a civil dispute into a criminal liability but the facts and circumstances spell out commission of criminal offences by the petitioners.
9. Since the investigation in the case is not complete, 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 has deprecated the interference of the High Court in the process of investigation in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the cases of Brig.
Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior Division, Islamabad (1994 SCM R 2142) and Shahnaz Begum v. Honourable Judges of the Sindh and Balochistan High Courts (1971 SC 677).
10. 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 out of malice. Reference is made to the case of Kamran Khan v. Station House Officer of P.S. Model Town, Gujranwala and others (2005 PCr.LJ 825).
11. In the latest pronouncement, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCM R 276) has observed as follows:- ' "It is also a settled proposition of law that if prima facie an offence has been committed, ordinary course of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. By accepting the constitutional petition the High Court erred in law to short circuit the normal procedure of law as provided under Cr.P.C. And police rules while exercising equitable jurisdiction which is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in A. Habibi Ahmad v. M.K.G. Scott Christian PLD 1992 SC 353."
12. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the practice of quashment of F.I.R. Is deprecated by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as is evident from the observations made by the apex Court in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq referred to above.
13. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for quashment of F.I.R. No,329 of D 2005 registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Sargodha, under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. Consequently, the writ petition being without any merit is dismissed.