' CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.---The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner had moved an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. To the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ExOfficio Justice of Peace Mailsi, for registration of case against the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 with the allegations that she was married to Javed Riaz respondent No,4 who had got land measuring 106 Kanals and 12 Marlas mutated in favour of the petitioner through gift deed dated 23-8-1994, whereas the remaining land measuring 93 Kanals and 8 Marlas was promised to be transferred to her. He moved applications to the revenue authorities for cancellation of the mutation but his appeals were dismissed and then he filed a civil suit. The petitioner also filed a suit for the remaining land promised to be given in lieu of dower but as a result of compromise she relinquished her claim of the remaining land. However, the land measuring 106 Kanals and 12 Marlas was acknowledged to have been transferred to the petitioner lawfully by her husband.
Afterwards, a fake and forged agreement to sell was allegedly prepared on 20-2-2010 and her signatures were forged on the said document by her husband in respect of the suit-land in connivance with the remaining respondents. In fact she neither went to Burewala nor purchased any stamp paper nor executed any agreement to sell nor put her signatures thereon as she was living in Multan since November, 2009. So, in order to misappropriate her property, fraud has been committed with her and a forged agreement to sell was prepared. The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace after obtaining the comments from the SHO Police Station City Mailsi directed him to proceed in accordance with law. The SHO did not perform his duty so the petitioner was constrained to file a petition to the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace who vide impugned order dated 9-3-2011 relying on Rapat No,6 dated 8-3-2011 submitted by the SHO under section 157(2), Cr.P.C. Dismissed the petition and observed that the petitioner was at liberty to file a private complaint, if so advised.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly argued that the impugned order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is not sustainable in the eye of law. He was bound to apply his judicial mind and he should not have acted just on the whims of the S.H.O.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the Rapat recorded by the SHO which is based on frivolous ground. It has been mentioned in the said Rapat that since the civil suit is pending between the parties in respect of the said agreement to sell so the criminal case cannot be registered. This view is violative of the law and the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace without applying his judicial mind proceeded to dismiss the petition and failed to get his own order implemented merely on the basis of this Rapat which had no legal bearing.
4. There is no cavil to the proposition that the civil as well criminal proceedings can be initiated simultaneously. If a person prepares a forged document and he himself files a suit for specific performance on the basis thereof, he cannot be absolved of his criminal liability as it would amount to perpetuate an illegality by refusing to initiate a criminal action against the said person.
The civil suit normally takes years to conclude. No one could be given benefit of his own wrong or misdeed.
5. The contents of the petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Moved by the petitioner revealed the commission of a cognizable offence as allegedly a forged agreement to sell was prepared by her husband in connivance with other persons so there was no legal bar to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused. Reliance is placed on 2003 SCM R 1691, 2006 SCM R 512 and 2008 SCM R 839.
6. In 2008 SCM R 839 the apex court observed as under:-- `It is well-settled that, a criminal case must be allowed to proceed on its own merits and merely because civil proceedings relating to same transaction have been instituted it has never been considered to be a legal bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings which can proceed concurrently because conviction for a criminal offence is altogether a different matter from the civil liability while the spirit and purpose of criminal proceedings is to punish the offender for the commission of a crime the purpose behind the civil proceedings is to enforce civil rights arising out of contracts and in law both the proceedings can co-exist and proceed with simultaneously without any legal restriction".
7. The criminal liability was always distinct and different from civil liability between the parties. If a criminal offence was made out there was absolutely no bar for getting a criminal case registered.
The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had already passed an order and he was duty, bound to get his order implemented and not to follow a baseless Rapat of the S.H.O. In the light of the above discussion and the case-law referred to above, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. So, the writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The S.H.O. Is directed to record the version of the petitioner, register a case and proceed strictly in accordance with law against all the ID persons found to be involved in commission of offence.