' SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---Through the instant Intra Court Appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 28-2-2011 whereby a learned Single Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition, filed by the present appellant for quashing of F.I.R. No,117, dated 18-2-2010, registered in Police Station, Civil Line, District Gujranwala, under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and the parties are already litigating in the Civil Court. The learned counsel next contended that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that challan has been submitted and charge has been framed against the accused person in the F.I.R. Sought to be quashed in 'the petition. The learned counsel further contended that submission of challan and framing of charge is no ground to refuse quashing of the F.I.R. As the same can be done even at any stage of the case to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to meet the ends of justice.
Relies upon the case of Badarur-Islam v. District Police Officer, Faisalabad and 3 others (2007 YLR 2766).
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No,3 has supported the impugned order by contending that the accused nominated in the F.I.R. Are guilty of preparing a forged document in order to deprive the complainant from his valuable property and that civil and criminal proceedings can go side by side. The learned counsel further contended that the appellant would avail the opportunity before the learned trial Court by production of his evidence in defence during the trial and he has got no ground to seek quashing of the F.I.R.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. There is no cavil with the proposition that an F.I.R. Can be quashed at any stage of the case but this can be done only when it is proved on record that further proceedings in the F.I.R. Would amount to abuse of the process of law, and this finding is supported by various A lawful reasons and in accordance with the criterion laid down by this Court as well as by the apex Court of this country. In the case of Ch. Pervez Ellahi v. The Federation of Pakistan and others (1995 M LD 615) a Division Bench of this Court has held that the proceedings may be quashed on the grounds when
(i) the case is of no evidence (ii) it is based on mala fide (iii) the case is purely of civil nature (iv) lack of jurisdiction, and (v) unexceptional delay in the disposal of the case causing deplorable mental, physical and financial torture to the person proceeded against. When seen on the touchstone of the above criterion, the case in hand lacks the above conditions. Preparation of a forged document is alleged against the accused nominated in the aforesaid F.I.R. The accused have been declared guilty during the investigation and their case has been sent to court for trial where charge has also been framed against them. When prima facie a case is made out against the accused, the Court can refuse quashing of the F.I.R. Furthermore, this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is not vested with any power to take the role of an investigator. It is also outside the jurisdiction of this Court to embark upon or evaluate the facts and evidence of any case. Truthfulness or falsehood of the allegations levelled in any F.I.R. Can only be thrashed out by a detailed enquiry for which law provides a prescribed procedure and the competent forum.. Any departure from the said procedure would amount to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure, which is not permissible under the law. In the present case, if the petitioner thinks that he has a good case to advance, he may raise his grounds before the learned trial Court by filing an application under the relevant provision of law.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground for interfering with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The instant Intra Court Appeal is without merit, which is accordingly, dismissed.