' Brief facts out of which the present Intra-Court Appeal arose are that the appellant filed Writ Petition No,4260 of 2009 whereby he sought quashment of F.I.R. No,440 dated 20-8-2009 got registered by respondent No,2 at Police Station City Ahmedpur East District Bahawalpur under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13-10-2009. The appellant seeks the setting aside of the impugned order dated 13-10-2009 and prays for quashment of the F.I.R.
2. The complainant while lodging FL R. No,440 of 2009 alleged that land measuring 21 Kanals 5 Marlas was transferred in his name, his mother, other brothers and sister vide Mutation No,901 dated 6-10-2006 after the death of their father. When complainant and his mother wanted to sell their shares land measuring 3 Kanals 10, Marlas to one Jam Muhammad Akram Tanuri, Advocate vide agreement to sell dated 8-5-2009, they approached Halqa Patwari for issuance of Fard which was not issued. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application on 11-7-2009 to the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Ahmadpur East wherein it was transpired that the appellant Muhammad Iqbal along with other accused produced a registered sale-deed No,80185 dated 6-10-1949 in favour of one Sher Muhammad claiming themselves to be the owner in possession of the said property. On inquiry, the said sale-deed was found bogus and forged one.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that regarding the said land a civil suit is pending and that the said sale-deed is subject-matter of the said civil suit and according to the provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Criminal proceedings can only be done by the Presiding Officer before whom the said civil suit is pending. Further contends that the learned Single Judge in Chamber had wrongly dismissed the writ petition as in presence of civil suit, criminal case cannot proceed and she further contends that even the learned Single Judge in Chamber had not ordered for staying of proceedings in criminal case. Learned counsel relied upon the cases of Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others 2000 SCMR 122, Rehmat Ali and others v. Station House Officer and others PLD 2004 Lah. 65, Arif Rafiq v. The State 1992 P.Cr.LJ.679, Agha Nadeem and others v. Province of Punjab and others 2005 MLD 1366 and Muhammad Ishaque Khan v. S.H.O. 2005 MLD 1816.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record.
5. In this case, the alleged forged and bogus sale-deed was prepared much prior to filing the civil suit. The said forged 'sale-deed came into the notice of the complainant when complainant applied for issuance of Fard. It was DDO(R) who probed into the matter and then it was found that the said sale-deed was fake one. In such situation, as the said document was not prepared during the proceedings in a civil suit; hence section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Is not applicable at all.
' The proceedings of civil and the criminal can be initiated side by side. In the recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as Seema Fareed and others v. The State and another 2008 SCMR 839, it is held that:--- "It is well settled that a criminal case must be allowed to proceed on its own merits. Merely because civil proceedings relating to the same transaction have been instituted has never been considered to be a legal bar to continuance of criminal proceedings which can proceed concurrently because conviction for a criminal offence is altogether a different matter from civil liability. While the spirit and purpose of criminal proceedings is to punish the offender for commission of a crime, the purpose behind the civil proceedings is to enforce rights arising out of contracts. In law both proceedings can co-exist and proceed simultaneously without any legal restriction."
' In the case of Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others 2006 SCMR 512, it is observed that "there is no bar existed to initiate both the proceedings i.e. Civil and criminal simultaneously."
' From the guidance of this judgment, it is crystal clear that both the proceedings of civil and criminal can be initiated side by side and Courts cannot stifle one proceeding for the other.
' Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that Civil Court will determine the genuineness or otherwise of the said sale-deed and then the said judgment of the Civil Court will be admissible in a criminal proceedings to establish the truth of the said sale-deed.
' We are afraid of the fact that this proposition has been dealt with by the Honourable apex Court in the case of Malik Khuda Bakhsh v. The State 1995 SCMR 1621 and it was observed that judgment of a Civil Court is not admissible in a criminal proceedings to establish the truth of the facts upon which it is rendered. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to this effect that proceedings in criminal trial be stayed has no force at all.
There is no cavil in the proposition that High Court has ample power to quash the F.I.R. At any stage but when Challan of the case is submitted in the Court, then there are other remedies available to the party for redressal of their grievance, then of course this Court, cannot quash the matter and the parties are directed to avail other remedies available to them.
' In the latest judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as Col. Shah Sadiq v.
Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276, it is held that "High Court had no jurisdiction to quash F.I.R. By appreciation of documents produced by the parties without providing chance to cross examine or confronting the documents in question---High Court would err in law to short circuit the normal procedure of law as provided under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Party seeking the quashing of F.I.R. Had alternative remedy to raise objection at the time of framing the charge against them by the trial Court or at the time of final disposal of the trial after recording the evidence---Said party had more than one alternative remedies before the trial Court under sections 265-K, Cr.P.C. And 249-A, Cr.P.C. Or to approach the concerned Magistrate for cancellation of the case under the provisions of Cr.P.C."
By getting guidance of this judgment, it is crystal clear that when there is a factual controversy, it should be left upon the trial Court to resolve the said factual controversy.
6. We have gone through the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and found no illegality or perversity to interfere in the said order. Resultantly, this appeal has no merits which is dismissed in limine.