RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, J.---Through this instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the quashment of FIR No. 432 dated 25-05-2015, under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., Police Station Civil Line, Gujranwala. The investigation of the case is in process and the reportedly the petitioner is on interim bail.
2. The relevant facts of the case as set out in this petition is that petitioner was appointed general attorney of Mst. Irshad Akhtar, Mst. Azma Nasreen, Mst. Noor un Nisa daughters of Muhammad Aziz, Muhammad Bashir, Mst. Iqbal Begum son and widow of M. Aziz on 04.01.92 that Mst. Irshad has revoked the power of Attorney No.42 vide cancellation deed No. 2128 dated 07.06.1994 even then the property of Mst. Irshad has been sold through fraud on 18.02.96 vide sale deed No.943 dated 18.02.96. The petitioner/accused executed the sale deed of the said property in favour of Mst.
Farrah Deeba wife of Muhammad Riaz. Furthermore, Irshad Begum has also filed suit for declaration with permanent injunction.
3. Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmed Khurshid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that dispute is of civil nature, therefore, pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of law and will cause harassment to him. The complainant of FIR namely Irshad Begum along with her sister had already filed civil suits, which is pending before the civil court where question in issue would be determined. It is further contended that legal formalities were not fulfilled before registration of case. No notice as required under section 206 of the contract Act was ever served upon the petitioner, therefore launching of criminal proceedings are unwarranted in this view of matters the power of attorney still holds the field. Further maintain that registration of criminal case and police investigation was required to be quashed by this court in exercise of constitution jurisdiction in view of pendency of civil litigation.
4. Further submitted that charge is groundless and there is no possibility of conviction then case should be buried and the FIR is liable to be quashed. That the power of attorney executed by the complainant was irrevocable and the criminal case has been launched with mala fide. He relied on the following cases (2000 SCM R 122), (2014 SCMR 741), (PLD 1965 SC 90), (2011 MLD 1129), (2010 SCM R 511), (1998 SCM R 1840), (NLR 2013 Crl. 170), (AIR 1934 Kolkata 721) and (PLJ(sic.) Crl. Cases 695).
5. The learned Assistant Advocate General submits that the accused through exercising fraud and misrepresentation transferred the property and got executed registered sale deed 943 dated 18.9.96 in spite of cancellation of power of attorney through cancellation deed No. 2128 in the year 1994. The FIR in question require proper police investigation the case is at initial stage and petitioner/accused is on pre-arrest bail states that the quashment of the FIR in question cannot be quashed by this court in writ jurisdiction merely on the ground of pendency of civil litigation relied on judgment 1996 SCM R 186.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The crime report against the petitioner registered on 25.05.2015 in which petitioner is on pre-arrest bail, prima facie, petitioner is involved in a commission of cognizable offence. The Police would certainly collect the evidence in order to prove whether the petitioner may or may not be found involved. It has often been stressed by apex Court of the country that the police investigation would not be interfered by the superior courts in the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Shenaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of the High Courts of Sindh and Balochistan and others (PLD 1997 SC 677).
7. It is further observed that guidelines are provided by the apex court of the country that civil and criminal cases can be proceeded side by side needless to say that there is no bar on the criminal proceedings in presence of civil suits. Reliance can safely be placed Ghulam Muhammad v.
Muzamil Khan and four others (PLD 1967 SC 317).
8. It is also observed that the instant case is based on certain documents as well. The attorney No. 42 was executed in favour of the petitioner on 04.01.92 and the said power of attorney was got cancelled by the executor of attorney i.e. Mst. Irshad Begum widow of Muhammad Rafiq through cancellation deed 2128 on 07.06.94. The sale deed was executed and registered in favour of Farrah Deeba wife of Muhammad Riaz vide sale deed No.943 of 18-02-1996. The complainant has also initiated civil suit against accused Abdul Rasheed son of Muhammad Nazir, Muhammad Riaz son of Muhammad Sadeeq and Farrah Deeba wife of Muhammad Riaz. In light of above mentioned circumstances no exception could be taken to the Police Investigation been carried despite the pendency of suit filed by the complainant and obviously at this stage of case FIR, disclosing the commission of cognizable offence cannot be quashed merely on the grounds mentioned in the writ petition. Criminal and civil proceedings are distinct and different from each others. FIR can be quashed if there are exceptional circumstances and apparently disclosed that if the FIR would remain and there would be a danger of grave injustice been done. In criminal cases police should be allowed to take the matter to its logical end. In the instant case criminal liability has not yet been fixed and to my mind it doesn't appear that the instant case depends upon or connected with the result of civil litigation.
9. Furthermore it may be possible for The High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. To involve in criminal proceedings of subordinate criminal Courts or pending a civil litigation but even then the FIRs are not quashed. Reliance is placed on Malik Khuda Baksh v. The State (1995 SCMR 621), Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzamil Khan and four others (PLD 1967 SC 317).
10. In light of the above mentioned observations the instant petition having no merits is here by dismissed.