' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J.---Through the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of F.I.R. No,398 dated 7-10-2011 under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Koral,- Islamabad.
2. The petitioners, being accused cited in the said F.I.R., have concentrated to seek relief on the grounds of another F.I.R. Registered on the same subject bearing F.I.R. No,524 dated 21-10-2011 under sections 420, 468, 471 and 409, P.P.C. In which, Patwari of Halqa and petitioner No,1 have been cited as accused. Allegedly, both the F.I.Rs, were got registered on the basis of same stamp paper bearing No,1241 dated 17-7-2006, when contrary to the requirement of aw that two F.I.Rs,, on the same subject, cannot be lodged, hence same being violative of Article 13 of the Constitution.
Besides other grounds, the petitioners have taken the ground of pendency of civil suit preferred by petitioner No,1, as one of the very important ground. Same is based upon enunciation of legal principle that civil and criminal proceedings cannot be continued on the same subject, as same being abuse of process of law, requires to be quashed. It is also pointed out thai F.I.R. No,524 contains scheduled offences as provided in Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1958, as Patwari has also been cited as co-accused. Therefore, both the offences are covered in the said F.I.R. Hence, petitioners are interested towards quashment of F.I.R. Bearing No,398 of 2011 P.S. Koral registered earlier to F.I.R. No,524, PS Shahzad Town, Islamabad.
3. It is necessary to mention here the text of both the F.I.Rs, to ascertain the real allegations levelled by the complainant. I would like to state facts narrated in F.I.R. No,398, P.S. Koral, Islamabad first, which are reproduced hereunder:- "F.I.R: lodged on 17-10-2011 does not disclose the date and time of incident, sections applied therein are 420, 468 and 471, P. P.C. Malik Babar Ali moved an application, which was resulted into F.I.R.
Containing allegation that he is resident of Ali Pur, Tehsil and District, Islamabad. He received information through Azhar Hussain Khokhar that petitioner No,1 is claiming ownership of land belonging to respondent No,5 measuring 33-kanals 6-marlas situated in Khasra No,827. On contact, petitioner No,1 showed a fake stamp paper, neither was attested by Notary Public nor issued by any stamp vendor. Also, it is alleged that same stamp paper contained forged signature of father of respondent No,5. It is alleged that on inquiry from relatives and companions of his father by respondent No,5, they exhibited their ignorance about execution of the sale agreement.
The application under section 22-A/B was moved,' when Hon ble Court Ordered for registration of F.I.R.
' The F.I.R. Bearing F.I.R. No,524 lodged at P.S. Shahzad Town, Islamabad on 21-10-2011. Not showing the date and time of incident applying same section of P.P.C. i.e, 420, 468, 471, subsequently, section 409 was applied, which was lodged by the same complainant i.e, Babar Ali in which, it is inter alia alleged that complainant is resident of Alipur Village and he acquired knowledge through Malik Naseer Ahmed and Malik Aftab Ahmed that yesterday on 7-10-2011, ex-Halqa Patwari Amanullah Khan before his transfer took away, register Khasra Gardawari and Roznamcha from Munshi and with connivance of Muhammad Yaseen son of Punno Khan, Malik Wajid son of Amin, Changaiz Akhtar, Nasir lqbal, exceeding his powers kept a false entry in the record showing possession, which is a penal offence, which they have done knowingly on the stamp paper No,1241 dated 17-2-2006 is a fake document and with ulterior motives by deceitful means with the connivance of Patwari Amanullah Khan, kept such, an entry, therefore, requested for action.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in fact, in the second F.I.R., the petitioner was arrested, bail was granted by the learned Special Judge (Central), thus, such Court has taken cognizance, whereas the bail in respect of F.I.R. Bearing No,398 is still pending. He also argued that since cognizance has been taken by granting bail, which is duly confirmed by the Special Judge, therefore, he has sought relief of quashment of earlier F.I.R.
' He also argued that investigation done by the police includes report of Handwriting Expert, which by itself, is not a conclusive proof to involve the accused, as the same is a weak type of evidence, not to be considered as a piece of evidence. Same stamp paper has again been made the subject in second F.I.R., therefore, it is violation of Article 13 of the Constitution.
' He argued that one person cannot be vexed twice for the same offence, which is contrary to the Constitution as well as section 403, Cr.P.C. And otherwise, there is no evidence available on record on the basis whereof, the accused could be connected with the commission of offence.
' He argued that during pendency of civil suit, criminal case is to be stayed as a principle of law and final fate of the criminal case is to be decided in view of decision of civil suit, as such the continuity of investigation, proceedings at any stage, will be a futility. Same being abuse of process of law, thus, requires to be quashed.
' In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following case-law:-
(a) 2005 SCMR152
(b) PLD 1989 Pesh. 148
(c) 1995 MLD 563
(d) 2009 CLC 21
(e) 1988 PCr.LJ 2263
(f) 2011 MLD 64
(h) 2010 SCMR 1835
(i) 2004 SCMR 1859
(j) AIR (39) 1962 Nagpur 12
(k) 1986 PCr.LJ 811
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that these are two distinct offences and there is no stamp paper number Mentioned in F.I.R. No,398 of 2011, P.S. Koral, Islamabad, therefore, subject of both the F.I.Rs, is not same.
' It is also argued that both the F.I.Rs: have been registered on different occasions. Time day and stories are quite different as well as the nature of offence. Inclusion of scheduled offences coupled with a public servant being accomplice with the principal accused, has totally changed the nature of offence, which is now falling under scheduled offences and is to be tried exclusively by the learned Special Judge (Central) and ordinary court cannot try it as bar contained in section 5 of the said Act.
' It is also argued that merely, similarity of the sections does not mean that it is a same subject.
Even the F.I.R. Lodged by the same complainant, but both the offences, in clear terms of the story narrated separately identifying their own complexion having no relevancy.
' He also argued that even if relevancy respecting same stamp paper is taken, that too, will not be considered as a hurdle, as such execution of the stamp paper is not the subject of F.I.R. No,524 of 2011, which has only limited scope to try an offence in respect of forgery is committed in the relevant record with the active connivance of Patwari, who is a public servant defined under section 21, P.P.C.
' He has relied upon following case-law:--
(a) 2000 PCr.LJ 956
(b) PLD 2009 Lah. 8
(c) 2004 MLD 1201
(d) 1997 MLD 1691-92
(g) 2008 SCMR 76
(h) 2008 SCMR 1193-
(i) 2Q06 SCMR 276 (I) 20b8 YLR 1341 (k) NLR 1998 Criminal 161
(1) 2008 PCr.LJ 469
(m) PLD 2005 Supreme Court 279
(n) 2000 PCr.LJ 22
6. Arguments heard. Record perused and the authorities referred by both the learned counsel so also the police papers.
7. From the record, it transpires that there is strong material available on record, which connects the petitioners with the commission of offence. Moreover, it could be hardly ascertained after material placed before the Court while submitting final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. About the similarity of the subject.
8. At this verge, when final report has not been submitted by the police, it is not possible to ascertain that it is same offence. However, the allegations levelled in F.I.R. No,524, P.S. Shahzad Town, Islamabad are quite different, which mostly defines tampering in the Revenue B Record on the basis of stamp paper by the Patwari, who is a public servant defined under section 21, P.P.C.
Therefore, the offence is to be tried by the Special Judge (Central) coupled with the offence falling under section 5(2)(ii)' of 1947 Act, known as Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
9. The scheduled offences as provided by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1958 are exclusively triable by the Special Judge and direct cognizance is to be initiated without application of section 190, Cr.P.C. Whereas if the same offences committed by private person without assistance of a public servant,, it cannot be considered as scheduled offences and could be tried by the ordinary court having jurisdiction to try.
10. Surprisingly, despite a fact narrated in the. F.I.R. Bearing No,524 of 2011 P.S. Shahzad Town, Islamabad, public servant has also been cited as collusive element with the private person, but yet ordinary police was continuing with the investigation, which is not permissible by law. On the contrary, even the same was lodged, it should have been immediately transmitted to the FIA for onward investigation.
11. It is also a settled principle of law that even The investigation conducted either erroneously, inadvertently or deliberately, but final report cannot be submitted by the ordinary police, as final fate of the investigation has to be decided by the FIA, as offences specified in F.I.R. No,524 of 2011 included into the schedule of FIA Act, as such, same is required to be immediately transferred to FIA without delay.
12. Office is directed to communicate this order to SSP, Islamabad for compliance and report within one week.
13. From the above discussion, I am of the view that authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no nexus with the features of the instant case, as same being irrelevant, are not required to be considered in favour of the petitioners.
14. No material or substance is available on record on the basis whereof, F.I.R. Bearing No,398 of 2011 P.S. Koral, Islamabad be quashed nor any legal aspect is available to help the petitioners in this regard. It is neither a case of double jeopardy nor a case of double incrimination. As yet, the challan/final report has not been submitted in both the cases.
15. It is also observed that the police frequently violates the period stipulated by law for submission of final report, therefore, directions are issue to immediately, by . Following the provisions of section 173, Cr.P.C., final report be submitted before the court having competent jurisdiction without any amount of delay.
16. In view of above discussion, I do not incline to grant relief of quashment of F.I.R., hence, the petition in hand is dismissed.
17. The police papers be returned immediately to the ' SHO concerned for compliance.