' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Ashiq Hussain, the petitioner, by submitting this constitutional petition, has prayed for the quashing of F.I.R. No,32 of 2008, dated 4-2-1008, registered with Police Station Sadar, Narowal, in respect of the offences under sections 420/468 and 471, P.P.C.
2. The precise allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. Lodged on the written application of Tanvir Akhtar widow of Shaukat Ali are, that after the murder of her husband, her brother-in-law namely Ashiq Hussain, the petitioner, firstly got a forged Nikahnama prepared showing himself to be her husband, and, thereafter, got two stamp papers thumb marked by her on the pretext of getting the Booster of Telenor-erected in the complainant's land-shifted. She further alleged that after misusing the said stamp papers the petitioner prepared a forged agreement to sell purportedly executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner. According to the complainant, the said fraud was committed by the petitioner with the active connivance of his co-accused duly named in the F.I.R.
3. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the murder of his brother who was the husband of the complainant, his entire property was mutated in the name of his legal heirs, including the complainant; that after the murder of her husband the petitioner got a loan worth Rs,5,00,000 from the petitioner for her father's business and in this regard she executed an agreement to sell her land in favour of the petitioner; that since the complainant's father had failed to return the said amount, therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against the complainant; that during the pendency of the civil proceedings the F.I.R. Could not be lodged; that before the registration of the impugned F.I.R., the complainant had filed an application under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but despite the dismissal of her application she managed to get the impugned F.I.R. Registered against the petitioner.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly the petitioner stands named in the F.I.R. With a specific allegation of committing fraud and forgery. It is true that after the murder of her husband his property was duly mutated in favour of-his legal heirs, However, according to the petitioner an agreement to sell dated 13th of March, 2007 was executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of the said agreement to sell would reveal that on the asking of the complainant, the petitioner statedly paid an amount of Rs,5,00,000 to her complainant's father as loan and according to the said agreement, it was agreed by the complainant that in case of failure of her father to return the said amount to the petitioner he would be entitled to get her (complainant 's) land transferred in his favour through Court. Tentatively speaking, the contents of the said agreement appear to be novel in character, inasmuch as the loan was obtained by the complainant's father but instead of the said loanee, in case of violation of the said agreement, the complainant herself had to reimburse the petitioner in shape of transfer of her land in the petitioner's favour. Furthermore, the contents of the said agreement are vague enough, inasmuch as the land, which was going to be mutated in favour of the petitioner in the eventuality of violation of the said novel agreement, was not specified. The rate on which the land was to be sold to the petitioner is also ridiculously as low as Rs,3,00,000 per acre.
It is also interesting to note, that the said agreement was not signed by the loanee himself.
However, the said document was purportedly thumb marked by the has already filed a suit for specific performance before the learned Civil woman. On the basis of the said novel agreement to sell, the petitioner complainant, a fact which shows that she is an illiterate and rustic Judge, Narowal. According to the petitioner the said suit is pending adjudication.
6. In the said backdrop it cannot be held in the writ jurisdiction that the allegations levelled in, the impugned F.I.R. Are totally false. As a matter of fact, for coming to the said conclusion, a detailed investigation is required, a function which lies squarely within the domain of the police. High Court obviously cannot perform the role of investigator.
' The F.I.R. Cannot be quashed simply on the ground that the civil litigation is pending adjudication between the parties. During the pendency of the civil suit on the basis of the document, which according to the complainant is a forged document, there is no bar against the registration of a criminal case. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police Malik Gul Nawaz, Narowal and 5 others PLD 1992 Lah.
178. Further, the investigation cannot be throttled at the initial stage. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCM R 276 and Muhammad Salim Bhatti v. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others 2006 SCM R 1957. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that after dismissal of complainant's application for registration of the case by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, the police could not register the case against the petitioner is Concerned, the same has also been found to be baseless. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer Okara Cantt. And others PLD 2007 SC 539 where the legal position in this regard stands resolved.
7. Consequently, the writ petition having been found meritless is dismissed in limine.
8. However, before parting with this order, it is observed that the observations made in this order would not prejudice the learned Civil Judge before whom the suit filed by the petitioner is statedly pending adjudication.