' MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J.---The petitioner seeks the quashment of F.I.R. No,80, dated 7-2- 2011, under section 406, P.P.C., Police Station Aabpara, on the grounds that there are civil litigations between the parties and the said F.I.R. Was lodged by the respondent No,3 with mala fide intention to harass and blackmail the petitioner, so that the complainant could retain the possession of the shop regarding which an eviction order has been passed. Learned counsel stressed upon the quashment on the ground that in respect of the same shop an eviction application was allowed against the complainant of present F.I.R. And in favour of the present petitioner/landlord with the clear observation of the learned trial Court in para No,10 of the judgment dated 8-7-2010 that "the demised shop was never sold out by the petitioner or purchased by either of respondent himself or his brother". It is stated that the said eviction order was maintained by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 8-12-2010 and tenant/complainant has been directed to be evicted from the said shop. It is further submitted that the respondent No,3/complainant on 25-8-2010 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreements dated 30-6-2006 and 24-8-2007, which even otherwise was a time-barred suit and after another six months, he lodged the present F.I.R. On 7-2-2011 about an alleged incident of 5-6-2006, which clearly shows the mala fide with the connivance of police.
2. The learned counsel relied upon the case-laws reported in 2001 PCr.LJ 218 and 2000 SCM R 122.
3. The first case-law is about the quashing of proceedings, whereby the F.I.R. Under sections 406, 419, P.P.C. Was quashed as the F.I.R. In that case was lodged after four years of the occurrence and about two years of institution of civil suit.
4. In the next case-law, the Hon'ble High Court had exercised jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And had quashed the proceedings and this order was upheld by maintaining that the High Court can quash the proceedings if there is no justification for registration of the criminal case and trial is a sheer wastage of time.
5. Learned Standing Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent No,3/tenant opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had committed a fraud and the investigation of the case cannot be hampered through writ jurisdiction. They submitted that once the F.I.R. Is lodged, police should be given free hand to investigate into the matter.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No,3 fortified his arguments on the case-laws reported in 2008 SCM R 76, 2006 SCM R 276, PLD 1997 SC 275, and 2005 PCr.LJ 1681.
7. In the first case-law, it is held that High Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to take the role of the Investigating Agency and to quash the F.I.R. Under Article 199 of the Constitution or under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Unless and until very exceptional circumstances exists.
8. The other case-laws lay down that if prima facie an offence is committed ordinary course of trial .Before the court should not be disrupted.
9. Heard and record perused.
10. There are few admitted features of the case, number one is that in respect of the same shop an application by the present petitioner against .The respondent/complainant was filed, where the respondent/tenant had taken a defence that he had purchased the said shop, but the learned trial Court repelled his stand and decreed the eviction application in favour of the petitioner by judgment dated 8-7-2010. The findings of learned trial Court were maintained by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 8-12-2010.
11. Secondly, the respondent No, 3 complainant of the F.I.R. Adopted another course and filed a civil suit on 25-8-2010, which was also dismissed on 1-4-2011 with the observation that "no agreement to sell was signed between the parties for sale of suit shop".
12. The present F.I.R. Was lodged on 7-2-2011 in respect of the same shop with same allegation about an alleged incident of 5-6-2006, without any plausible explanation as to why the F.I.R. Is being lodged after such a long delay of 4-1/2 years and that too after his eviction order in respect of same shop by the competent court.
13.
Record reveals that the contentions of the complainant were nowhere accepted in civil litigation and he had not personally issued any cheque towards the payment of sale and his admitted position as tenant has been decided by the Civil Courts.
14. The present F.I.R. After 4-1/2 years of the alleged incident and after six months of the filing of civil suit could not have been lodged. The allegations do not seem to be justified on the basis of record and the Hon'ble High Court under writ jurisdiction has got ample powers to quash the proceedings of a criminal case, if no offence is made out and the dispute is entirely of civil nature, which was converted into criminal proceedings with ulterior motives. In such matters, where exceptional circumstances exist, the powers under Article 199 of the Constitution or under section 561-A, Cr.P.O can be exercised.
15. Before parting with the judgment, the SSP, Islamabad is directed to look into the matter and call the explanation of the concerned SHO and I0 of the case as well as to how and why F.I.R. Was lodged after a considerable delay of 4 years and 8 months, especially when all the documents had been discarded by the competent Civil Court. If necessary a proper inquiry should be conducted and report thereof be sent to this Court through the Registrar for perusal to find out whether the F.I.R. Was lodged at the behest of complainant or in good faith. The I.O. Of the case should also explain as to what was the result of his initial inquiry/investigation, because F.I.R. Was lodged on 7- 2-2011 and within 15 days, he had to reach a conclusion and if F.I.R. Was lodged without any lawful justifiable reason, then whether proceedings under section 182/211, P.P.C. Are required or not.
16. Keeping in view the above, the writ petition is accepted and the F.I.R. No,80, dated 7-2-2011, under section 406, P.P.C., Police Station Aabpara, Islamabad is quashed.