' HASSAN RAZA PASHA, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of case F. I. R. No, 27, dated 8-2-2010 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mr. Muhammad Amjad petitioner is Chief Executive of Eden Housing (Pvt.) Limited. He entered into an agreement to sell with Raja Arshad Mehmood respondent No,2 and purchased land measuring 476 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in Mauza Sihala Tehsil and District Islamabad vide seven Sale-Deeds for a consideration of Rs,362,381,250. The petitioner issued three cheques in favour of respondent No,2. Cheque No,5970312 dated 10-3-2008 amounting to Rs,50,000,000 and Cheque No,5970313 dated 10-4-2008 amounting to Rs,50,000,000 were encashed but the Cheques No,5970314 dated 10-8-2008 amounting to Rs,130,000,000 was dishonoured, on presentation to the concerned Bank.
3. Mr. Muhammad Latif Khawaja, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not commit any offence as the cheques was not dishonoured due to want of funds but it was due to the letter issued to the Manager NIB, Gulberg Branch, Lahore for stopping encashment of disputed cheque. Learned counsel argued that in terms of Clause IV of the agreement between the parties dated 6-2-2008, if at any stage any defect/fault in the ownership or any dispute occurred regarding the land, the respondent No,2 will not present post-dated cheque for encashment until such dispute is resolved. He further argued that Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Islamabad vide order dated 16-2-2009 cancelled the mutation No,1173 of the disputed land and due to that the petitioner was deprived of land measuring 289 Kanals, 18 Marlas out of the land measuring 476 Kanals, 14 Marlas purchased by the petitioner from Raja Arshad Mehmood. According to learned counsel a legal notice was issued to the petitioner on behalf of Mr. Matloob Ellahi Paracha, Proprietor, Shahzad Enterprises, Chaklala Scheme-III, Rawalpindi regarding the dispute of land in question with Raja Arshad Mehmood and, therefore, the petitioner informed the complainant that the Company has made a request for stopping encashment of disputed cheque. He further argued that Cheques Nos.5970312 dated 10-3-2008 and 5970313 dated 10-4-2008 of NIB Bank, Main Boulevard Branch, Gulberg-III, Lahore were encashed by respondent No,2. He lastly submitted that in these circumstances no case whatsoever is made out against the petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C., and that the impugned F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed. He relied upon Sheikh Mureed Hussain v. S.H.O. Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad and 2 others 2005 PCr.LJ 144 and 2005 SCM R 306.
4. Syed Nayab Hassan Gardezi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No,2 argued that the complainant had already fulfilled his obligation while transferring the land through seven registered sale-deeds. He being owner in possession of the land, duly transferred the title as well as possession of the entire land mentioned in agreement. He argued that a judicial inquiry conducted by the Sessions Judge Islamabad has already been decided in favour of the complainant. He further argued that as the complainant has fulfilled his obligations, it is also the duty of the petitioner to perform his obligation as per settled principle of equity. He lastly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In support of his contention he has relied upon Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v.
Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others 2006 SCM R 1957, Muhammad Younas and others v. Mst. Perveen alias Mano and others 2007 SCM R 393 and Seema Fareed and others v. The State and another 2008 SCM R 839.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through relevant material placed on record. Admittedly, the parties entered into an agreement regarding the land measuring 439 Kanals, 5 Marlas situated at Mauza Sihala Tehsil and District Islamabad wherein both the parties agreed and frame certain criteria for transfer of above said land and payment. It is also admitted that the present petitioner issued three Cheques Nos.5970312, 5970313 and 5970314. Two cheques were duly encashed by the complainant whereas the third one amounting to Rs,130,000,000 was not encashed due to stopping of payment showing concern to Clause-IV of the agreement, which is reproduced hereinbelow for facility sake:-- "That if in future at any stage any defect/fault in ownership or any dispute occurred regarding this land, the party of first part will not present post dated cheques for encashment until such dispute will not resolve."
' Learned counsel for the petitioner referred legal notice sent on behalf of Mr. Matloob Ellahi Paracha, Shahzad Enterprises, Chaklala Scheme-III, Rawalpindi dated 4-7-2008 wherein it is mentioned that there is a dispute regarding the property purchased by the petitioner from Raja Arshad Mehmood. He also referred the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) dated 16-2-2009 whereby he cancelled the Mutation No,1173 of the disputed land. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant urged that the above said Mr. Matloob Ellahi Paracha had no concern whatsoever with the land in question nor it was even in possession thereof. As the complainant has already executed seven registered sale-deeds in favour of the petitioner and after sanctioning of the mutation possession was duly transferred to the petitioner which is still lying with him. When confronted with this position, learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly conceded that possession of the disputed land is lying with the petitioner. It is true that in Clause-IV of the Agreement it is mentioned that in case of any defect or default in ownership or any dispute occurred regarding this land, the post-dated Cheques will not be presented for encashment until such dispute will not resolve. But so far as the ownership is concerned, the complainant transferred his title in favour of the petitioner through registered sale-deed which were duly incorporated in the Revenue Record and at the same time the petitioner get possession of the said land. To my mind, when the complainants: has fulfilled his obligation, then it was the duty of the petitioner to fulfil his obligation. The petitioner has issued cheque amounting to Rs,130,0Q0,000 in favour of the complainant, upon which the petitioner dishonestly made a request vide letter dated 22-7-2008 to the bank authorities to stop the payment.
5A. It is clear from the facts of the case that the circumstances spell out commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner. Since the investigation in the case has not B been completed, as such this Court cannot control or interfere in the same, as the investigation is the sole prerogative of the Investigating Agency. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has deprecated the interference in the process of investigation in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamabad Republic of Pakistan. Prima facie, the facts of the case do not disclose that the allegations levelled by respondent No,2 in the F.I.R. Are baseless or motivated out of malice.
As there is factual controversy between the parties, therefore, in such situation it is not fair to quash the F.I.R. Which is under investigation at preliminary stage. The quashment of F.I.R. Would amount to short-circuiting the normal procedure of law as provided under Code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise the petitioner-accused has more than one alternate remedies available under the law, which he can avail at appropriate stage.
6. For what has been discussed above, the petition being without any merit is E dismissed.