HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this constitutional petition the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 8-1-2010 passed by the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge for registration of case against the petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C. On the complaint of respondent No,3. Respondent No,3 filed petition under section 22-A of Cr.P.C. Before the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi alleging that the petitioner issued cheque No,9002006 dated 16-2-2009 amounting to Rs,15,00,000 of account No,0120052305 Allied Bank Ltd which was dishonoured.
'Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the civil suit is pending before the civil Court and injunction was A issued with regard to the cheque in dispute. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has paid the whole amount of the cheque in dispute. The respondent No,3 is trying to falsely implicate the petitioner in the case under section 489-F, P.P.C. So the order passed by the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge for recording of the statement of respondent No,3 complainant under section 154, Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 8-1-2010 be set aside.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. The factual controversy whether the petitioner has settled the account with the respondent or not, can only be resolved by the civil Court and this Court cannot assume the role of an investigator. The order passed by learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge is quite in accordance- with law. The petitioner can put all his version before the Investigating Officer if in compliance of order passed by learned Justice of Peace statement of Muhammad Imran respondent No,3 is recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. The factual controversy cannot be resolved in this constitutional petition. During the pendency of civil proceedings criminal proceedings are not barred. Reliance can be placed on a case titled "Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and another" (2006 SCM R 1192). This writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.