' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. Dr. Muhammad Akbar Pasha petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,609, dated 26-6-2009 registered under sections 406/420/468/471, P.P.C. At Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore on the application of Mian Hafeez-ur-Rehman with the allegation that the petitioner has committed breach of trust by mis- appropriating the money of the complainant as well as making his forged signatures in the Iqrarnama executed between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of two years three months and seventeen days in lodging the F.I.R. Without any explanation; that there is documentary evidence in support of contentions that actually plot was sold by the complainant to the petitioner and he received an amount of Rs,16,00,000 and subsequently one Jan Muhammad Intervened and told the petitioner that he had purchased the said plot in the year, 1977 and he has been defrauded by the complainant; that number of agreements had been arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant, the complainant had got lodged F.I.R. No,424, dated 11-4-2008 at Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore under section 489-F, P.P.C. Against the petitioner and the petitioner also got lodged case against the complainant. Both the parties are in litigation and the matter is of civil nature which has been converted into criminal offence; that the petitioner is entitled to bail before arrest who has been falsely implicated in the present case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive by the complainant that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and no useful purpose can be served by sending the petitioner to jail.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed this petition on the ground that as soon as the complainant came to know that Iqrarnama had been tampered with by the petitioner he has got lodged the F.I.R. It is also contended that the cheque was dishonoured due to the non-availability of sufficient funds. It is also contended if the ownership of the plot was disputed how the loan was obtained by the petitioner from the Bank; that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R., who has been found guilty by the police and he has not joined the investigation.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the agreement to sell had been arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant according to which the petitioner had purchased the property for an amount of Rs,22,25,000 from the complainant. The agreement to sell shows that an amount of Rs,22,00,000 had been received by the petitioner and only Rs,25,000 were balance amount and the sale-deed was to be executed on its payment. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the agreement was prepared for security purpose and it was not the actual agreement which has been arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court that the sale-deed was executed by Aziz-u-Rehman in favour of Usman which was registered on 30-6-2005 and subsequently said Usman sold the said property to the complainant Hafeez-ur-Rehman through agreement to sell on 22-11-2005. It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that general power of attorney was also executed in favour of the complainant and said Usman. Subsequently the petitioner claims that the said property was sold to the petitioner by the complainant through sale-deed, dated 12-3-2007 and the dispute arose between the parties when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that one Jan Muhammad was also claimant of the said property, who claimed to have the sale-deed executed in his favour in the year, 1977. Then the petitioner was approached and it came to knowledge that the sale could not be executed due to the claim of Jan Muhammad and the complainant got lodged case under section 489-F, P.P.C. Against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner claims that he has settled the matter with the complainant and only two marlas of land had been purchased from Hafiz-ur-Rehman by the petitioner while the said plot according to Aziz-ur-Rehman was measuring 10 marlas and not 8 marlas. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner through the documentary evidence that the sale-deed of the plot had been executed in favour of Jan Muhammad in the year, 1977 for a total consideration of Rs,10,00,000.
5. Admittedly the petitioner had earlier got lodged F.I.R. No,392 on 14-4-2009 as well against the complainant of the present case in which it was alleged that the complainant had defrauded the petitioner and the compromise was arrived at between the parties according to the petitioner on 23-4-2009 but the complainant party has backed out. In such circumstances it is clear that the dispute between both the parties is of civil nature and which party is at fault and which agreement has been correctly executed is a question which can only be resolved by a Civil Court if any of the parties approaches the said Court. For the time being possibility of false implication of the petitioner in the present case due to chequered history of registration of cases between the complainant and the petitioner cannot be ruled out and no useful purpose can be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars as the petitioner claims that he had purchased the property and made payment. Moreover, in the present case nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and bail before arrest is meant to protect the innocent citizens if they are involved in a criminal case with mala fide intention or ulterior motive. In the present case mala fide and ulterior motive on the part of the complainant is apparent and civil dispute seems to have been converted into criminal offence. Hence this petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 4-8-2009 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.