' MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Briefly the facts are that Ghulam Rasool complainant/respondent No.2 who also happens to be the real brother of Ghulam Qadir/petitioner, got lodged F.I.R. No.401 of 2010 dated 22-9-2010 registered under sections 468, 471, 420 P.P.C. At Police Station Cantt, Bahawalpur, with the narration that out of wedlock of Mst. Zarina Bibi (daughter of Ghulam Qadir) and Abdul Rasheed (son of Ghulam Rasool) for the last about 22-years no issue was born, as such, Abdul Rasheed asked permission for another marriage and divorced Mst. Zarina Bibi on 21-7-2009.
Because of this reason, Ghulam Qadir was unhappy and with a view to cause loss to the complainant, he prepared anti dated forged and fictitious agreement to sell with regard to 10- kanal and 4-1/2 marlas of land. According to the complainant the said agreement neither contained his signatures nor thumb impressions and furthermore, Ghulam Qadir also prepared a forged receipt dated 3-11-2007 regarding Rs.300,000. According to the F.I.R., in a panchayat before Ghulam Farid and Haji Zahoor Ahmad the accused/petitioner admitted his guilt and begged for pardon.
2. Through this writ petition, Ghulam Qadir petitioner/accused seeks quashing of above F.I.R. It is argued by learned counsel that a bare reading of the contents of the F.I.R. Would show that offence under section 420, P.P.C. As defined in section 415, P.P.C. Is not made out, whereas, remaining sections are non-cognizable and the police just to make the case cognizable added section 420, P.P.C. The learned counsel further contended that instant F.I.R. Has been got lodged against the, petitioner due to mala fide and ulterior motives on the part of the complainant, as before the registration of the case a civil suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner was pending wherein the complainant also appeared on numerous dates but subsequently he absented himself from the court and twisting the facts he tried to convert the civil litigation into criminal offence. In support of his assertions learned counsel placed reliance on the case "Mrs. ZARA SHAH through his Attorney v. S. H. 0, POLICE STATION DEFENCE AREA LAHORE and-2 others" (2002 YLR 390), "IFTIKHAR ALI v. ABDUL HAFEEZ AWAN" (1999 PCr.LJ 1239) and "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ v. STATE and 2 others" (PLJ 2010 Lahore 506).
3. The learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant rebutted the above assertions and argued that factual controversy cannot be resolved and as the challan has been sent to court the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the learned trial court, as such this Court lacks jurisdiction.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the contents of the F.I.R.
6. Section 420, P.P.C. Relates to offence of cheating and dishonest delivery of property and definite of word "cheating" has been given in section 415, P.P.C., as under:- "415. Cheating: Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person or any other person] in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
' The reproduced provision of section 415, Cr.P.C. Therefore, requires that, there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement; the person induced should be deceived; the deception should be of the nature to prompt the person induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Hence, prima facie in the light of alleged forged agreement to sell the property and receipt of Rs.300,000 along with other evidence, is sufficient to establish the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property as contemplated in section 420, P.P.C., against the accused of the case in hand. Unfortunately, in our country in cases of dishonest and fraudulent inducement, no effective remedy exists with the person aggrieved to seek redress, because there is a thin line of distinction between civil and criminal liability and very cleverly criminal act of cheating is painted as a civil liability. This distinction is a question of fact and the determination thereof, depends upon the nature of the evidence to be adduced in the trial Court. Therefore, criminal proceedings should not be quashed before giving the accused an opportunity to produce evidence.
7. In almost similar circumstances when an agreement to sell was executed with the help of marginal witnesses, a suit was filed, the respondent appeared in suit proceedings before the learned trial court and thereafter, got lodged an F.I.R. Under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471. P.P.C., that matter came up before this Court for quashing of the said F.I.R. And in reported judgment "MOHABAT KHAN and 5 others v. SSP FAISALABAD and 5 others" (1999 MLD 2243), the writ petition for quashing of F.I.R. Was dismissed. The matter about interpretation of section 195(1)(C), Cr.P.C. With reference to a document executed before institution of civil suit, was settled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case "MUHAMMAD SHAFFI v. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (Malik GUL NAWAZ), NAROWAL and 5 others" (PLD 1992 Lahore 178), wherein, their lordships made the following observations, which are of utmost importance for the decision of controversy, as has been agitated in this case:- "Now can it be said that the offence of forgery was against the administration of justice in a. Case in which the offence was committed, say, ten or twenty years before the suit in which the forged document was produced or given in evidence? The answer must obviously be in the negative. The forger must have, before the suit, used the forged document on a number of occasions in deceiving a number of persons. And when his fraud and forgery came to light and the real owner or the persons defrauded were preparing to take .Criminal proceedings, he hit upon the clever device of instituting a civil suit and producing the forged document in the civil suit. He would, then, on the view contended for by the petitioner, be able to say" 'Well, 1 have produced the document in the Civil Court; you have to wait till that Court has finally decided the genuineness or otherwise of the document, for unless that is done, that Court will not be in a position to say whether an offence of forgery was committed or not and to lodge a complaint under section 105'.
Unfortunately, civil suits usually take very long to decide and, in practical terms, it may amount to completely defeating the ends of justice. On this view, therefore, the Civil Courts will become a place for the protection of criminals. This obviously could not have been the intention of the law.
The cause of action for proceeding against the forger arose immediately when the offence of forgery as defined in section 463 of the P. P. C. Was committed. The commission of that offence was not only intended to deprive the real owner of his property but had also enabled the forger to deceive others and to deprive them of none. No proceedings were pending in any Court at that time. There was, therefore, no question of the offence, at the date of its commission, being against the Court or the administration of justice; nor did it, then, in any way sully the proceedings of the Court, for none were pending."
' After discussing the practical aspect of the facts and circumstances, their lordships in the above celebrated judgment held:- "S.195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Does not apply to cases in which the forgery was committed before the institution of a suit or other proceedings in which the forged document was produced or given in evidence.
' As the two interpretations of clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Are so evenly balanced, the one that does not deprive the ordinary Criminal Courts of their ordinary jurisdiction and persons of the right of redress must be adopted. On that view of the matter also, the view that clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Does not apply to cases in which the forgery was committed before the institution of a suit or other proceedings in which the forged document is produced or given in evidence should be preferred.]"
' As such, in the light of above valuable references, there is no ambiguity left to observe that in the case in hand from perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. As detailed above prima. Facie an offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is made out.
8. There is yet another aspect of the case i.e. The petitioner definitely has more than one alternate remedies and in such a situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Haji SARDAR KHALID SALEEM v. MUHAMAMD ASHRAF and others" (2006 SCMR 1192), wherein, it has been held that "petitioner had alternative remedy to raise objection at the time of framing charge against him by the Trial Court or at the time of final disposal of the trial by the Trial Court after recording evidence. Even otherwise petitioner had more than one alternative remedies viz. Before, the Trial Court under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 i.e. Section 265-A or 249-A, Cr.P.C. " Moreover, the disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, which requires detailed inquiry or recording of evidence. In this case admittedly report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted, therefore, a number of alternate remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code have become available to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Mst. KANIZ FATIMA through Legal heirs v. MUHAMMAD SALIM and 27 others"
(2001 SCMR 1493) has held that " Where a particular statute provides self-contained machinery for determination of questions arising under the statute and law provides a remedy by appeal or revision to another Tribunal fully competent to give any relief, any indulgence to the contrary by High Court is bound to produce a sense of distrust in statutory Tribunals". Furthermore, in the case "MIR ZAMAN v. Mst. SHEDA and 58 others" (2000 SCMR 1699), the apex court of the country held that in the presence of other. Legal remedies, constitutional petition was incompetent and un- maintainable. Therefore, on this score as well this petition is not maintainable.
9. As regards the case-law "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ v. STATE and 2 others" (PLJ 2010 Lahore 506), "IFTIKHAR ALI v. ABDUI, HAFEEZ AWAN" (1999 SD 491) "Mrs. ZARA SHAH through his Attorney v. S.H.O., POLICE STATION DEFENCE AREA LAHORE and 2 others" (2002 YLR 390), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, with all respect to these reported judgments, I am of the view that, same are distinguishable from the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court referred above and while sitting in Single Bench, I have to follow the judgment of the Full Bench, especially when the interpretation made by the Full Bench is applicable to the case in hand.
' Moreover, on the aspect of alternate remedies and factual controversies, the judgments of the apex Court of the country provide guidelines as referred above and this Court has to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this Court and the same dictums have to prevail.
10. For what has been discussed above, I see no merit in this F petition and the same is therefore, dismissed.
11. Needless to add that whatever has been held above with regard to applicability of offence under section 420, P.P.C., it is a tentative assessment and if at the time of framing of charge or at any subsequently stage after recording evidence the learned trial court reaches to a conclusion otherwise, it may proceed as provided by law.