IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- Through the present constitutional petition, Muhammad Umar Farooq and others, petitioners seek quashing of F.I.R. No,370 of 2009 dated 26-9-2009, registered under sections 420/468/471/475, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Kamalia District Toba Tek Singh.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Mst. Shamim Akram complainant got the aforesaid case registered against the petitioners alleging therein that she is a widow lady and is owner of land measuring 44 Kanals, 10 Marlas situated at Chak No,711/GB District Toba Tek Singh. On the evening of 30-6-2009 the accused came to her brother, namely, Irfan at his residence and told him that they have come to know that the complainant has to get mutated her land in her name. If she gives special power of attorney to Muhammad Umar Farooq, petitioner No,1, he can easily get mutated the said land in her name. She accepted the offer through inducement and put her signatures and thumb-impression upon a blank stamp paper. She further alleged that on 15-7- 2009 the accused persons again jointly showed to her agreement to sell dated 13-1-2009, according to which, the complainant had sold the said land to the accused/petitioners and they had paid a sum of Rs,10,00,000 as earnest money and in this regard a receipt was duly prepared by Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob, Waseeqa Navees on 13-1-2009. According to the said receipt the complainant had received the above said amount as earnest money.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has concocted a story for registration of a criminal case against the petitioners. In the petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. The report from the police was sought and the concerned police submitted its report/comments categorically stating therein that no such occurrence ever took place and the complainant has sold her land to the petitioners and she had duly executed agreement to sell in this regard and had also received the earnest money. He further submits that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioners that they got her thumb-impression on a blank stamp paper for the purpose of preparing special power of attorney for getting mutation of inheritance sanctioned in her favour are false and frivolous. In fact she had sold her land to petitioner No,1 and the stance of the complainant is falsified from the fact that the said land had already been mutated in her name vide Mutations Nos.1144 and 1145 which were duly attested by the Tehsildar, as such, there was no question of getting the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of the complainant. He also submits that the complainant has herself admitted her signatures and thumb-impression on agreement to sell as genuine, as such, the petitioners have committed no offence and the impugned F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed. He further submits that from the documentary evidence it is crystal clear that no fraud or forgery has been committed by the petitioners and that the complainant with mala fide intention sold the said property to another person, namely, Rashid Ahmad for a consideration of Rs,90,00,000 and Rs,11,00,000 were received by her as earnest money through agreement to sell for the ' performance of which said Rashid Ahmad has filed a suit wherein she filed a consenting written statement, as such, the complainant has committed. Fraud and forgery with the petitioners.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the available record.
There are three ingredients for quashing of the F.I.R. Namely, that the facts narrated in the F.I.R. Do not constitute the offences mentioned therein, that there is no probability of the conviction of the accused nominated therein at the fag end of the trial and that the concerned police station had no jurisdiction to register the case. In the instant case no such ingredient has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. The complainant has vehemently narrated in the F.I.R. That she has been defrauded by the petitioners by preparing forged documents i.e. Agreement to sell and receipt under the garb of preparing a special power of attorney. The aforesaid facts need deeper probe and the investigating agency is meant for doing this job and not this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction as this Court cannot take the role of an investigating agency and to quash the F.I.R. While exercising constitutional power under Article 199 of the Constitution unless and until there are very exceptional circumstances and in the instant case there is no such exceptional circumstance. Reference is made to Dr. Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and others 2008 SCM R 76.
5. If the facts, pleas and arguments raised here in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioners are seen from another angle, the same need factual inquiry as according to the complainant she had put her signatures on a blank stamp paper, for preparing a special power of attorney but the petitioners have prepared agreement to sell and receipt which exercise cannot also be undertaken in these proceedings in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, which in fact is the duty of the learned trial Court. If prima facie an offence had been committed, ordinary course of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has no jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R. By appreciation of the documents produced by the parties without providing chance to cross- examine or confronting the documents and this Court cannot short circuit the normal procedure of law as provided under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
6. Even the petitioners have got more than one alternate remedies before the trial Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For their acquittal if no incriminating material is brought before the learned trial Court or to approach the concerned. Magistrate for cancellation of the case under the provisions of Cr.P.C. And in the presence of alternate remedies this Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere in the instant matter under Article 199 of the Constitution.
7. For what has been discussed above, I find no merit in this constitutional petition which is hereby dismissed.