' SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.--- Writ Petitions Nos.490-Q, 1297-Q and 1189-Q of 2013 are being disposed of through this single order as these writ petitions have originated from the common transaction. The petitioner Rana $aeed Ullah in Writ Petition No, 490-Q of 2013 and in Writ Petition No,1297 of 2013 has sought the indulgence of this court for the quashment of the case F.I.R. No 1/13 dated 5-1-2013 for the offence under sections 420/ 468/471/506(ii), P.P.C. Police Station Banni Galla, Islamabad and Case F.I.R. No, 18/13 dated 16-2-2013 for the offence under sections 406/467/ 447/419/34, P.P.C. Police Station Banni Galla, Islamabad whereas the petitioner Raheel Khan in Writ Petition No,1189-Q of 2013 has claimed the quashment of the Case F.I.R. No 221/11 dated 30-4-.2011 for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad.
2. Precisely the facts emanating from the perusal of all these three petitions are that one Fiaz-ud- Din Siddiqui respondent No,6 in Writ Petition No,1297 of 2013 being the general attorney of his other co-sharers made an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner Rana Saeed Ullah through acknowledgement deed dated 24-12-2008 whereby. He agreed to sell land measuring 93 Kanals to the petitioner Rana Saeed. Ullah for the total sale consideration of Rs,5,20,80,000, out of which he received earnest money of Rs,1,30,20,000 from the petitioner. Petitioner Rana Saeed Ullah further made the agreement to sell in favour of the Raheel Khan i.e, petitioner in Writ Petition No,1189 of 2013 through acknowledgement deed dated 2-9-2009 and he agreed to sell the above mentioned land measuring 93 kanals in favour of Raheel Khan for total sale consideration of Rs,9,53,25,000. In the completion of the agreement, the dispute crept up between the parties and Fiaz-ud-Din Siddiqui respondent No,6 in Writ Petition No,1297 of 2013 instituted a Civil suit against both the petitioners on 24-11-2009 wherein the petitioners submitted their separate written statements. The record further reflects that Raheel Khan respondent No 6 had also instituted a civil Suit No,11 of 2011 in this court which is pending for adjudication. Thereafter the parties started to agitate the controversy on the criminal side and Rana Saeed Ullah petitioner lodged Case F.I.R. No, 221 on 30-4-2011 for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. With Police Station Kohsar against Raheel Khan alleging therein that a cheque amounting to Rs,1,30,65,000 issued by Raheel Khan was dishonored on its presentation.
Perusal of the record further reveals that in that criminal case the investigation agency has submitted the cancellation report. In the meantime the petitioner Raheel Khan lodged case F.I.R.
No,1 dated 5-1-2013 with the Police Station Banni Galla against the petitioner Rana Saeed Ullah alleging therein that Rana Saeed Ullah had agreed to sell the land measuring 93 kanals to Raheel Khan vide acknowledgement deed dated 2-9-2009 and he obtained an amount of Rs,3,61,00,000 but subsequently it transpired to Raheel Khan that the suit property was actually owned by Fiaz- udDin Siddiqui, that Rana Saeed Ullah had failed to transfer the suit property in favour of Raheel Khan, that he had shown fake title documents to Raheel Khan and had also extended the threats.
Thereafter the respondent No, 6 Fiaz-ud-Din Siddiqui lodged a criminal case F.I.R. No,18 of 2013 dated 16-2-2013 for the offence under sections 406/447/467/34, P.P.C. Police Station Banni Galla against both the petitioners wherein he alleged that both the petitioners had violated the terms and conditions of the acknowledgement deed dated 24-12-2008.
3. Learned counsel representing the parties have advanced their respective contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioners have mainly contended that the controversy between the parties is a dispute of civil nature and the parties have been dragging each other on the criminal side with no other motive except to gain the upper hand. Learned counsel have further contended that no offence is absolutely made out as the rights and liabilities of the parties are sub judice not only in this court in original civil jurisdiction but also in the subordinate courts where two separate suits are pending for adjudication. Learned counsel representing the respective complainants of the criminal cases have argued that the case registered on the behest of their respective complaint is a genuine criminal case which was registered for the commission of the criminal liability and no ground of quashment is made out ' This court has given its due consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have also perused the record annexed with the petitions and produced in the court through the respective I.Os.
4. It is an adinitted fact that Fiaz-ud-Din Siddiqui who is complainant of the case F.I.R. No,18 of 2013 had made the agreement to sell the suit property measuring 93 kanals in favour of the petitioner Rana Saeed Ullah for the sale consideration of Rs,5,20,80000 wherein he acknowledged that by 24- 12-2008 ,he Would deliver the possession, of the suit property and to transfer the suit property in the name of the petitioner Rana Saeed Ullah. Rana Saeed Ullah made the further agreement to sell the same property in favour of the petitioner Raheel Khan through acknowledgement deed dated 2-9- 2009 and thereafter Faiz-ud-Din Siddiqui instituted a civil suit for declaration, possession along with perpetual and mandatory injunction in the civil court Islamabad on 24-11-2009 wherein he alleged that the petitioner Rana Saeed Ullah had violated the terms and conditions of the acknowledgement deed dated 24-12-2008 and that he had delivered the possession of the suit property to the second petitioner Raheel Khan. Reportedly that suit is still pending for adjudication in the learned trial Court which is being contested by the petitioners. Prior to the registration of any of the F.I.R., petitioner Raheel Khan instituted a Civil Suit No,11 of 2011 in this court wherein he prayed for the declaration, cancellation of cheques and recovery of damages on the basis of the agreement dated 2-9-2009 against the petitioner Rana Saeed Ullah and Fiaz-udDin Siddiqui and this suit is also pending for adjudication in this court. The institution of civil suits by itself is the ample proof that the real controversy between the parties in all these three criminal cases is about the execution of the acknowledgement deeds dated 24-12-2008 and 2-9-2009 and for the resolution of that controversy, the parties have rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the courts on the civil side.
5. It is not out of place to mention here that the resolution of the controversy at the civil side is lengthy process and may be being dissatisfied with the pace of the suits; the parties manage the registration of these F.I.Rs, which are the subject-matter of these three writ petitions. First F.I.R.
Registered by Rana Saeed Ullah which is F.I.R. No 221 of 2011 dated 30-4-2011 for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Police Station Kohsar against Raheel Khan wherein he alleged that Raheel Khan had issued the disputed cheques with the dishonest intention and that cheque was dishonoured on its presentation. Perusal of record annexed with the file reveals that in that case, the report of the cancellation was prepared. Subsequently Raheel Khan lodged case F.I.R. No 1 of 2013 dated 5-1-2013 with P.S Banni Galla against Rana Saeed Ullah with the allegation that after the acknowledgement deed dated 2-9-2009, Raheel Khan came to know that the suit land was actually owned by Faiz Faiz-udDin Siddiqui, that Rana Saeed Ullah had failed to transfer the suit property in his name and he not only presented the forged title document of the suit property but also extended threats of dire consequences and ultimately Fiaz-ud-Din Siddiqui also stepped forward to lodge the Case F.I.R. No, 18 dated 16-2-2013 for the offence under sections 406/468, etc. Police Station Banni Galla with the allegation of the violation of the terms and conditions of the acknowledgement deed dated 24-12-2008.
6. The above mentioned resume of facts clearly establishes that the dispute and controversy between the parties is of civil nature and the rights and liabilities of the parties are sub judice in the competent civil courts. The allegation of the Raheel Khan that Rana Saeed Ullah had shown the fake title document is not correct as in the acknowledgement deed dated 2-9-2009, the status of the vendor is mentioned in the separate para wherein it is provided that Rana Saeed Ullah had purchased the suit property vide Sale Agreement No 4307 and it is further provided that the attested copy of that sale agreement is attached, therefore the allegation of presentation of any false title document becomes incorrect. Similarly the F.I.R. Lodged by the Fiaz-ud-Din Siddiqui also becomes misuse of the process of the law as he has already challenged the controversy through a civil suit which suit was instituted on 24-11-2009 and which is being contested by both the petitioners. Raheel Khan petitioner had instituted a civil suit in this court which is also sub judice and in that suit the petitioner Raheel Khan had prayed for the cancellation of, some cheques and it is appropriate to observe that Rana Saeed Ullah had lodged the case F.I.R. No,221 on 30-4-2011 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Police Station Kohsar against Raheel Khan with the allegation that the Cheque No,1235447 for the amount of Rs,130,65,000 was dishonored but about this cheque the civil suit of Raheel Khan is pending for adjudication in this court and furthermore it is yet to be determined that whether the petitioner Rana Saeed Ullah had fulfilled his obligations of the transfer of the suit property in favour of the Raheel Khan before seeking the encashment of the disputed cheque. In all the attending circumstances, It is held that the registration of all the three criminal cases by Rana Saeed Ullah against Raheel Khan, by Raheel Khan against the Rana Saeed Ullah and by Fiaz-ud-Din Siddiqui against Rana Saeed Ullah and Raheel Khan amounts to misuse of the process of law;' A therefore, Writ Petitions Nos. 490-Q of 2013, 1189 of 2013 and 1297-Q of 2013 are allowed and all the three F.I.Rs, subject-matter of these Writ Petitions are hereby quashed.
F.I.Rs, quashed revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.