Contends that the impugned order dated 22.08.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Multan is against law and facts. The petition under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner was dismissed only on the ground that it was filed after lapse of a period of 11 years and that civil litigation was also pending. The learned counsel goes on to submit that the wife of the petitioner Mst. Sultana Begum died on 09.0.1998, whereas the forged gift-deed was prepared bearing date as 03.04.1998. It was shown to be executed by Mst. Sultana Begum wife of the petitioner, whereas she never executed any such gift-deed in favour of Haider Ali.
2. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The legal questions involved in the instant writ petition are as to whether the delay in lodging the petition for registration of case is fatal and whether the pendency of a civil suit creates bar for initiating criminal proceedings against the accused person. Admittedly, no limitation is provided for registration of a case. The petition could not be dismissed merely due to delay in filing the petition.
Allegedly the gift-deed was executed fraudulently and it was forged and fake.
4. On the point of limitation I would like to rely on "2010 SCM R 105" (Muhammad Fiaz Khan V. Ajmer Khan) wherein it was held that no limitation is provided in criminal law for lodging a complaint.
Delay in lodging the complaint is not by itself fatal except very exceptional circumstances. When a complaint is filed after a considerable delay which was not explained then in such a situation it raises suspicion as to its truthfulness. Similarly, I would also like to refer to "2006 SCM R 512"
[Supreme Court of Pakistan] (Rafique Bibi V. Muhammad Sharif and others). The apex Courts observed as under:-- "Right of a woman in immovable property was to be protected. The complainant got registered FIR against the accused persons on the allegation of manipulation in revenue record and depriving lady of immovable property. The High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction quashed the FIR on the ground that it was registered with a delay of 26 years with mala fide intention and matter was of civil nature.
It was further observed regarding delay in lodging the FIR:-- "'that the effect of lodging FIR with delay was always left to be considered by the trial court seized of the matter. The delay in lodging FIR had not been considered fatal in every case by the superior Courts. If lodging of FIR with delay was explained convincingly then the Court would not terminate the proceedings on such score: The question of satisfying the delay entirely related to the factual aspect of the matter. No bar existed to initiate both the proceedings i.e. civil and criminal simultaneously. Mala fide was a question of fact which required proof by producing evidence.
Supreme Court had always emphasized for the protection of rights of women particularly related to landed property".
The august Supreme Court of Pakistan converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the High Court whereby the proceedings in the FIR were quashed.
5. As regards the effect of pendency of civil litigation there is no cavil to the proposition that civil as well criminal proceedings can be initiated simultaneously as was observed by the apex Court in 2006 SCM R 512. 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. If a criminal offence is made out there is absolutely no bar for getting a criminal case registered against the accused person inspite of pendency of civil suit. I am fortified in my view on this legal point by 2003 SCM R 1691 and 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. In the light of case law referred to above, it is held that the petition under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. could neither be dismissed on account of moving it with delay nor it could be rejected on the ground of the pendency of the civil suit in respect of the alleged agreement to sell. So, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The writ petition is thus accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the SHO P.S. Chehliyak Multan is directed to record the version of the petitioner and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law as per provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C.