' KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.---Rashid Mirza, petitioner, is an accused in case F.I.R. No,25, dated 7-6-2008 under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad. The case is still under investigation with the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The petitioner has filed this constitutional petition for quashing the F.I.R. On the ground that no offence whatsoever was/is made out against the petitioner or his co-accused persons and that the respondent-complainant brought a civil dispute before the criminal investigating agency after having reshaped and twisted true facts.
2. Muhammad Arshad, complainant/respondent No,3 was original owner of disputed property measuring about four kanals bearing Square No,48 located in Chak No,232, R.B. Distt. Faisalabad, which was mutated in favour of Rashid Mirza, petitioner/accused vide Mutation No,5235, dated 1-5- 2005. The respondent-complainant got registered the case with an allegation that he neither approached Revenue Patwari nor made a statement before the Revenue Officer in favour of the petitioner-accused and that the later with the active support of the Revenue Officials got sanctioned the mutation in question fraudulently, through personation. The Anti-Corruption Establishment/investigating agency recorded the F.I.R. And took cognizance of the following questions of fact and mixed questions of law and fact:--
(i) Whether the respondent-complainant appeared before Wahid Khan, Patwari Chak No,232-RB on 9-5-2005 in presence of Rashid Mirza, petitioner-accused, Atta Muhammad and Muhammad Asif, co-accused/co-owners and got entered Mutation No,5235 in respect of disputed property in favour of Rashid Mirza, accused for a consideration of Rs,3,00,000.
(ii) Whether the entries made by the Revenue Officials in the Daily Diary and the Mutation Register are genuine and based on facts as claimed by the petitioner/accused or the same are bogus, fraudulent and a result of personation as alleged by the complainant?
(iii) Whether the respondent-complainant appeared before the Revenue Officer and got sanctioned the mutation in favour of the petitioner/accused?
(vi) Whether the respondent/complainant himself produced his photograph and got it pasted on the mutation to establish his identity before the Revenue Officer or it was stolen away by the petitioner/accused vendee and was misused?
(v) Whether the respondent/complainant himself furnished the number of his National Identity Card to the Revenue Officer at the time of attestation of the mutation in question or stolen national identity card had been used by the accused persons.
(vi) Whether the respondent/complainant himself thumb-marked and signed the receipt of sale price or blank paper bearing 'his thumb-impressions and signature had been used by the accused?
3. It may be mentioned here that the respondent-complainant did not challenge legality or correctness of the mutation before the Distt. Collector by way of an appeal or before the Civil Court by means of a suit for declaration and instead chose to approach the Anti-Corruption Establishment. Therefore, it is neither disputed nor disputable that the mutation in question containing appealable order of the Revenue Officer still holds the field. The respondent- complainant claimed that he neither sold the land in dispute to the petitioner-accused nor received its sale price against the above said receipt bearing his thumb-impressions and signature. The receipt bears thumb-impressions and signature of the respondent-complainant.
The Finger Print Bureau also certified this fact on comparison of disputed thumb- impressions/signature of the complainant with his admitted ones. When confronted with the above said state of affairs, the learned counsel for the complainant attempted to argue that an advocate obtained thumb-impressions/signature of the complainant on a blank paper and then passed on to the petitioner/ accused. On the other hand the accused has come forward with the claim that he paid Rs,3,00,000 as sale price of the land against proper receipt. As to which of the two conflicting versions is true and based on facts is a question which requires trial before the Court of law. The criminal investigating agency which has the limited mandate of combating corruption, bribery and misappropriation of public money cannot undertake such exercise.
4. Two co-owners of the complainant claimed to have identified him before the Revenue Officer. As abundant caution, the Revenue Officer pasted an attested photograph of the complainant/vendor on the mutation. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant argued that the petitioner- accused removed photograph of the respondent from his old Identity Card and then misused it.
He, however, could not establish as to when, where and in what manner the petitioner-accused succeeded to remove photograph from his old National Identity Card. Above said self-assertion of the complainant cannot be the substitute of evidence. Further more, the photograph of the complainant affixed on the mutation stands attested by a Naib Nazim of the Union Council.
Therefore, the claim of the respondent-complainant set up in the F.I.R. That the petitioner-accused removed photograph from his old national identity card and then got it pasted on the mutation, stands belied and repudiated. The learned counsel for the complainant took exception to the report of the Finger Print Bureau in respect of thumb impressions and signature of the respondent- complainant on the receipt of sale price, on the ground that an Advocate deceitfully obtained signature and thumb-impressions on a blank i,aper and then passed on to the petitioner-accused.
On the face of it this contention appears to be ridiculous, particularly when the respondent- complainant has not shown as to when and for what purpose he signed and thumb-marked a blank paper on the asking of some Advocate.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has contended that the respondent- complainant invoked the jurisdiction of criminal investigation agency for resolution of a pure civil dispute. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant has seriously argued that any order by this Court before conclusion of investigation may hamper the process of investigation, which falls within the exclusive domain of the investigating agency/Anti-Corruption Establishment.
In support of this contention, the learned counsel has further argued that the questions of guilt or innocence of the accused reported against are always dealt with and decided by the trial Court after recording evidence. I have carefully examined the arguments of both the sides in the light of available material and the law governing the subject. It is true that the High Court is always reluctant in quashing the F.I.R. In exercise of constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers, but at the same time. It is high time for taking effective legal steps to keep the government functionaries/departments/institutions/agencies within their allotted sphere. In the case in hand the respondent-complainant sold his owned property in favour of the petitioner-accused by means of Mutation of Sale No,5235, dated 10-5-2005. The Revenue Patwari entered the proposed transaction in the daily diary and the Register of Mutations and then place the matter before the Revenue Officer. Two co-owners of the respondent-complainant identified him before the Revenue Officer at the B time of attestation of the mutation. As abundant caution, the Revenue Officer also got affixed on the mutation a photograph of the respondent/complainant/vendor duly attested by a Naib Nazim, Union Council. The petitioner/accused/vendee paid consideration of Rs,3,00,000 to the complainant-vendor against proper receipt bearing his thumb impressions and signature. The only explanation of the respondent-complainant about his thumb impressions and signature on the receipt was that an advocate got his attestation on a blank paper and then passed on to the petitioner. It was/is a mere self-assertion by the complainant. In the normal course of events, the respondent- complainant was/is not expected and supposed to thumb-mark and sign a blank paper.
6. I have already mentioned that the respondent/complainant did not file an appeal before the District Collector against the order" in question of the Revenue Officer. He also did not challenge validity and legality of the mutation before the Civil Court by way of a suit for declaration. The controversial points already noted above fall within the exclusive domain of the Civil Court. The Anti-Corruption Establishment have very limited and special functions, and powers. The only object of the creation of this special criminal investigating agency was to combat corruption, bribery and embezzlement of public money and, therefore, the main focus of the Anti-Corruption Establishment should have been eradication of corruption. In the recent past, I have noted with concern that Agency has been encroaching upon the functions and powers of other government departments.
It has also been noted in a number of cases that irregularities committed by government functionaries were treated as offences by the Agency. In the circumstances it has become essential to direct the Anti-Corruption Establishment not to go beyond, their mandate. The case in hand is text book example of encroachment upon the functions and powers of the Revenue Department, particularly E the District Collector. Here I may add that the Anti-Corruption Establishment cannot be and should not be allowed to assume the role of Civil Court or the Distt.
Collector.
7. In this view of the matter, I feel no difficulty in concluding that no offence, whatsoever, was/is made out against the petitioner. There was a pure civil dispute, if any, between the parties. In case, the respondent-complainant was not satisfied with the appealable order of the Revenue Officer, he should have filed an appeal before the Distt. Collector, Anti-Corruption Establishment was/is not the competent forum for resolution of such like disputes. In the circumstances this is a fit case for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers. By allowing the criminal investigating agency to investigate the case would amount to abuse of process of law. I, therefore, quash F.I.R.
No,25 of 2008 registered with Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad, however, with the clarification that observations made in the preceding paragraphs shall not adversely affect the case and the cause of the respondent-complainant as and when laid before the Distt.
Collector or the Civil Court.
8. A copy of this order may be sent to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore requiring him to ensure that the officers/officials of the Establishment working in the field shall remain within their allotted sphere.