Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 26.1.2010 passed by the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala/ Respondent No. 3.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Abdul Ghaffar, Respondent No. 2, filed an application under Section 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. for registration of case against the petitioner before the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who vide order dated 26.1.2010, disposed of the said application, directing Respondent No. 2 to approach Respondent No. 1 SHO P.S. Qila Didar Singh, District Gujranwala, and Respondent No. 1 was also directed to record the statement of Respondent No. 2 and register .a case in case a cognizable offence was made out and also proceed with the case in accordance with law. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, while passing the impugned order, has not taken into consideration the report of Respondent No. 1/SHO that the payment has duly been made to Respondent No. 2. It is .further contended that the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, also failed to take into consideration that an injunctive order has been passed in the suit of the petitioner with regard to the encashment of the disputed cheques. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2 has dbtained the impugned order from the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala/Respondent No. 3 in order to blackmail and harass the petitioner. It is further contended that the Honourable Supreme Court in a number of judgments has laid down that if the matter is pending before the Civil Court, the Criminal Court should not decide the matter till the decision of the Civil Court, therefore, the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, illegally directed the registration of case against the petitioner and in this respect, reliance is placed upon a judgment dated 9.9.2009 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in CP No. 1398-L/09.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No 2 and the learned Additional Advocate- General, while supporting the impugned order, have stated that admittedly, an agreement dated 18.6.2008 was entered into between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 regarding the sale of the land Measuring 8 Kanals situated in village Hardopur, Tehsil and District Gujranwala and according to the said agreement, it was agreed that the petitioner will pay Rs. 1,10,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2: It is further contended that the petitioner had given four cheques to Respondent No. 2 and two cheques of Rs. 15,00,000/-each were encashed and in this way, Respondent No. 2 received Rs.
30,00,000/- from the petitioner but two other cheques, one of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the other of Rs.
8,00,000/-, were not encashed and the same were dishonoured. It is further contended that the petitioner had made some forged and fabricated entries by affixing signatures of Respondent No. 2 on the back of the agreement (Annexure-D), which show that Respondent No. 2 has received Rs.53,00,000/- and. Rs. 20,00,000/- from the petitioner but the actual position is that Respondent No. 2 has not made signatures on the back of the said agreement and has not received the said amount. It is further contended that the petitioner had given two cheques of Rs. 80,00,000/- and Rs.
27,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2, which were later on dishonoured due to insufficient funds, and by giving the said cheques, the petitioner had taken the original agreement dated 18.6.2008 from Respondent No. 2 and thereafter, the petitioner forged the said entries on the above mentioned agreement and submitted a copy thereof before this Court for evading his liability. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2 had already moved an application for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the said fabrication to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala. It is further contended that the stay order, if at all, was issued by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Gujranwala, after the .dishonour of the cheques in question worth Rs.
80,00,000/- and Rs. 27,00,000/-, therefore, the criminal liability had begun to come into play against the petitioner and no injunctive order can be granted by a civil Court against criminal investigation or in any criminal matter and in this respect, reliance is placed upon Aamir Shehzad Vs. The State and another (PLD 2005 Lahore 568). It is further contended that criminal proceedings are not barred in presence of civil,proceedings and civil and criminal proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously, as such, the learned Justice, of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala/ Respondent No. 3 has rightly passed the impugned order dated 26.1.2010 and in this respect, reliance is placed upon Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem Vs. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2006 SCM R 1192). It is further contended that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and he has filed this writ petition with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives, as such, he is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in this writ petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General and have also perused the impugned order as well as the material placed on the record by both the parties.
6. Admittedly, an agreement dated 18.6.2008 was entered into between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 regarding the sale of the land measuring 8 Kanals situated in village Hardopur, Tehsil and District Gujranwala and according to the said agreement, it was agreed that the petitioner will pay Rs. 1,10,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2. Perusal of R1 to R4 attached with the written reply of Respondent No. 2, it appears that the petitioner had given four cheques to Respondent No. 2 and two cheques of Rs. 15,00,000/- each were encashed and in this way, Respondent No. 2 received Rs. 30,00,000/-from the petitioner but two other cheques, one of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the other of Rs. 8,00,000/-, were not encashed and the same were dishonoured. It also appears from the record that the petitioner had given two other cheques of Rs. 80,00,000/- and Rs. 27,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2, which were also dishonoured due to insufficient funds. According to the petitioner, he had paid Rs. 53,00,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 whereas according to Respondent No. 2, he has not received the said amount because the petitioner had made some forged and fabricated entries by affixing his signatures on the back of the agreement (Annexure- D), which show that Respondent No. 2 has received Rs.53,00,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- from the petitioner, as is apparent from R/5 agreement dated 18.6.2008 attached with the written reply of Respondent No. 2 and in this behalf, he had moved an application to the Deputy Inspector-General, Gujranwala for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it appears that there are factual controversies in this case, which cannot be taken into consideration by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction as has been laid down in the case of Collector of Customs, Lahore and others Vs. Universal Gateway Trading Corporation and another (2005 SCM R 37).
7. As regards the civil suit instituted by the petitioner and the injunctive order issued by the Civil Court in respect of the cheuqes in issue, suffice it to observe that the alleged dishonouring of the cheques in question had come about prior to issuance of the stay order by the civil Court and according to Section, 56(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, no injunction can be granted by a civil Court against criminal investigation or in any criminal matter, as has been held in Aamir Shehzad Vs. The State and another (PLD 2005 Lahore 568).
8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that if the matter is pending before the Civil Court, the Criminal Court should not decide the matter till the decision of the civil Court is concerned, the said contention has no force as criminal proceedings are not barred in presence of civil proceedings and civil and criminal proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously as has been held in Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem Vs. Muhamnzad Ashraf and others (2006 SCM R 1192).
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances and also relying upon Aamir Shehzad Vs. The State and another (PLD 2005 Lahore 568) and Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem Vs. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2006 SCM R 1192), I am of the considered view that the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala/Respondent No. 3 has rightly passed the impugned order dated 26.1.2010 and learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.