MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.--- This constitutional petition has been filed for quashment of case F.I.R. No,715 of 2009 dated 1-11-2009, under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Civil Lines Gujranwala, on the statement of Mst. Zareena Begum complainant, against the petitioner, with the allegation that the petitioner, on the basis of forged "Iqrar Namas" got transferred property in his name; that on having come to know about the said fraud, complainant etc. Moved the concerned forum, got cancelled the transfer of the property from the name of the petitioner/accused and that by preparing forged "Iqrar Namas", the petitioner/accused committed fraud with them. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner and complainant etc. Are real brother and sister inter se.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a civil suit for specific performance of a contract between the petitioner and complainant (who are brother and sisters) is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge at Gujranwala, which has been filed by the petitioner for the specific performance of the contract on the basis of a document (agreement to sell) which was executed between brother and sisters; that the respondent No,3 filed an application before the Honourable Chief Justice of this Court for taking appropriate action against the petitioner.
The Honourable Chief Justice called report from the police and the police registered the case against the petitioner without realizing/ considering that the civil suit is pending between the parties before the learned Civil Judge and there was no occasion for the petitioner to forge the said document; that the document in question is the subject-matter of a civil suit and the aspect of its forgery or otherwise can only be taken into consideration by the said learned Civil Court under section 476, Cr.P.C. That provisions of sections 420/ 468/471, P.P.C. Do not attract in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the impugned F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed in the above circumstances.
3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General submits that the complainant Mst.
Zarina Bibi is the real sister of the petitioner and the petitioner made an abortive attempt to deprive her from the property on the basis of forged documents; that the petitioner has not joined the investigation; that there is no bar on the registration of a criminal case during the pendency of a civil suit and that this writ petition is not maintainable as he has alternate remedies under the law.
He has placed reliance on Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others 2006 SCM R 1192 and Dr. Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and others 2008 SCM R 76.
4. I have gone through the contents of the impugned F.I.R., taken into consideration the arguments advanced by both the sides at the Bar, perused the record and have given anxious consideration to the arguments addressed from both the sides.
5. Most of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this constitutional petition, entail factual controversy which exercise cannot be undertaken in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court coupled with the fact that the petitioner did not join investigation to put forth his version before the Investigating Officer of the case. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned F.I.R. Could not have been registered during the pendency of the civil suit on the subject-matter between the parties, has no force because it is settled law that civil as well as criminal proceedings can proceed side by side and merely on the said score, F.I.R. Cannot be quashed. In this regard, the learned Law Officer has rightly placed reliance on Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others 2006 SCM R 1192, wherein at page 1195 it was held as under:--- "(5) It is settled law that criminal proceedings are not barred in presence of civil proceedings and that civil and criminal proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously."
(6) It is also settled law that if, prima facie, an offence had been committed, the ordinary course of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
The afore-referred view was reiterated in the case of Dr. Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and others 2008 SCM R 76 which has correctly been referred to by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, during the course of arguments.
6. The question of quashment of an F.I.R. Came up for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCM R 276, wherein the apex Court, while setting aside order of the High Court, whereby F.I.R. Was quashed in a writ petition, highlighting the following alternate remedies:---
(a) To appear before the Investigating Officer to prove their innocence.
(b) To approach the competent higher authorities of the Investigating Officer having powers vide section 551 of Cr.P.C.
(c) After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has to submit case to the concerned Magistrate and the Magistrate concerned has power to discharge them under section 63 of the Cr.P.C. In case of their innocence.
(d) In case he finds the respondents innocent, he would refuse to take cognizance of the matter.
(e) Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules of 1934 makes a provision for cancellation of case during the course of investigation under the orders of the concerned Magistrate.
(f) There are then remedies which are available to accused persons who claim to be innocent and who can seek relief without going through the entire length of investigations.
7. In view of what has been discussed above and respectfully following the dictum laid down by the apex Court in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq (supra), as the petitioner has alternate remedies. I find no merit in this quashment petition which is hereby dismissed.