1. MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM UZ ZAMAN, J.---This order will dispose of Writ Petition No. 4772 of 2007 filed by Mian Muhammad Shabbir seeking quashment of case F.I.R. No.100 of 2007 for the offences under sections 420/471/468, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Naseerabad, Lahore and Criminal Miscellaneous No.9094-B of 2007 filed by Nasir Khan seeking pre-arrest bail in the said case.
2. ' The crux of case F.I.R. No.100 of 2007 registered at Police Station Naseerabad Lahore is that Nasir Khan (petitioner) and other co-accused after preparing fake documents (Registry etc.) had deprived the complainant and his brothers of their valuable land.
3. ' The quashment is being sought on the ground that earlier with regard to same allegation case.
4. F.I.R. No.588 of 2005 was got registered by the same complainant i.e. Muhammad Zaman Khan on 18-10-2005 at Police Station Nishter Colony Lahore and during the investigation the case was found false and ultimately cancelled. It is submitted that for the same allegation the registration of second F.I.R. Is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel further submits that mutation No.7068 has been executed in favour of Nasir Khan and others qua the land in dispute and later on in view of the same land was sold by them and that none of them had committed any offence find mention in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that though the said mutation was cancelled on 4-2-2006 by the Assistant Collector but the same order was restored by the revisional authority vide order, dated 3-5-2006 and that in the circumstances the sale of the land in dispute falling in the share of the petitioner to a third party does not constitute any offence nor it could be said that the complainant party had ever been defrauded by the petitioner and his co-accused.
5. ' Conversely, learned counsel for complainant submitted that mutation in dispute No.7068, was cancelled on 4-2-2006 by the Assistant Collector but the petitioner and his co-accused who had the knowledge about the said cancellation deliberately while preparing forged document sold the land in dispute on 18-4-2006 and thus they had committed an offence falling within the definition of sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. It is submitted that though the said cancellation order was later on set aside by the revisional authorities vide order, dated 4-5-2006 but since the land in dispute was sold away by the petitioner and his co-accused prior to said order the provision of Penal Code find mention in the F.I.R. Are very much attracted. It is further submitted that the said revisional order is under consideration before the competent authority and yet the same order has not attained finality. Learned counsel finally argued that no ground for quashment of F.I.R. Is made out nor in the circumstances Nasir Khan petitioner is entitled for pre-arrest bail.
6. ' Heard. File perused.
7. ' The land in dispute is a joint property and admittedly all the co-sharers have the equal right in the said property qua each and every part of the same. In the present case the mutation deed No.7068 in favour of the petitioners and his co-accused, though was cancelled on 15-2-2006 but the revisional authority restored the same upon an application moved by the petitioner when he came to know about the cancellation of the same. Whether the petitioner Nasir Khan and his co-accused had the knowledge about the cancellation of mutation (7068) when they executed sale deed i.e. On 18-4-2006 is a question asking for further inquiry. I have also observed that authenticity of mutation No.7068 is under consideration before competent authority and at this stage comments qua the legal value of the said document by this Court is not appropriate.
8. ' Be that as it may, as far Criminal M. No. 9099-B-07 is concerned a good case qua the grant of pre - arrest bail in favour of Nasir Khan petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the said petition is allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 7-12-2007 stands confirmed against the same surety bonds.
9. With regard to quashment of F.I.R. The matter is still under investigation and it is yet to be determined by the competent authority qua the status of document in dispute. Even otherwise it is well settled that the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this Court in constitutional petitions. Accordingly, finding no substance in writ petition No.4772 of 2007 the same stands dismissed.