' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---Muhammad Tariq, Noor Ahmad and Allah Ditta petitioners pray for grant of anticipatory bail in a case. F.I.R. No, 31 dated 20-1-2012 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. With Police Station, Pir Mehal District Toba Tek Singh for forging an agreement to sell.
2. Heard.
3. It is noticed that the occurrence had taken place on 22-11-2010 but the F.I.R. Has been lodged with the delay of two years i,e, on 20-1-2012. The petitioners on the basis of agreement to sell had instituted a suit for specific performance of argument on 22-2-2011 against the complainant party.
After having knowledge of institution of civil suit on the basis of same agreement to sell, the complainant did not approach the court for setting into motion the criminal machinery against the petitioners. According to the contents of the agreement Rs, one crore was paid by petitioners to the complainant for the purchase of the land in dispute and some of the money was transferred into the account of the complainant through on line banking. Enforcement to hat agreement is subject- matter of the civil suit where the court shall determine its genuineness and validity. Anomaly can be created in case the court convicts the petitioners for an offence charged in the F.I.R. And sentenced them, holding that the agreement to sell was forged document, whereas the other side picture could be that a civil court may grant a decree of specific performance of that agreement to sell in favour of the petitioners holding the same as valid and enforceable document. In this situation whole of the criminal proceedings would prove as futile exercise and wastage of precious public time. Needless to say that the civil court is competent forum for the determination of the genuineness of the document which also enjoys a power to set aside the same if that document is not proved in accordance with law: Further the court also enjoys the jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings against the person found involved in the fabrication of that document adjudged to be a fabricated one. According to the record, the petitioners had made payment of huge amount to the complainant party and it appears that the complainant in order to usurp the amount had lodged the instant case against the petitioners. In this scenario the detention of the petitioners in jail would not serve ends of justice, rather would cause harassment and humiliation to the petitioners.
4. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 13-2-2012 is confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, One million each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.