1. ' The instant constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner for the quashment of FIR No, 642/2016 dated 14.05.2016, offence under Section 420, PPC registered at Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore.
2. As per brief allegations levelled in the FIR, Malik Shaukat Ali (petitioner) was owner of the land bearing Khasra No, 2041, 2046 and 2047, measuring 31/2 marlas, situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore. The complainant executed an agreement to sell with the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned land,, in sale consideration of Rs,6,12,500/- and on 01.11.2011, paid an amount of Rs,5,20,000/-, whereas out of the remaining amount of Rs,92,500/-, the complainant paid to the petitioner an amount of Rs,60,000/- on 11.05.2012 and an amount of Rs,32,500/- on 14.03.2014, The petitioner handed over a photo copy of Fard Malkiyat to the complainant in June, 2013 but the original Fard Malkiyat was not handed over by the petitioner to the complainant. Later on the petitioner told the complainant that, the aforementioned photo copy of Fard Malkiyat had expired and demanded an amount of Rs,5000/- for issuance of fresh original Fard Malkiyat, which amount was paid to him by the complainant but inspite of that, the original Fard Malkiyat was not handed over by the petitioner to the complainant. In July 2014, the petitioner demanded Rs, 15000/- from the complainant in respect of expense to be incurred on the execution of registered sale deed and the said amount was also paid by the petitioner to the complainant but inspite of that registered sale deed was not executed by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, hence the afore derationed FIR.
2. 3.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a case of civil nature regarding the specific performance of agreement to sell and no criminal offence is made out from the contents of the impugned FIR, therefore, the same may be quashed.
3. 4.On the other hand, this petition has been opposed by learned Assistant Advocate General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant on the grounds that the complainant had paid the entire sale consideration of the land in question to the petitioner and he has also paid an amount of Rs,20,000/- in respect of the expenses for obtaining a fresh attested photo copy of Fard Malkiyat and for registration of the sale deed but inspire of the payment of the above mentioned amounts, the petitioner has not executed the sale deed, in favour of the complainant, therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 420, PPC are fully attracted in this case; that challan in this case has already been submitted before the learned trial Court, therefore, this petition is not maintainable before this Court because the petitioner may first avail the alternate remedies as provided under the law; that there is no substance in the present petition, therefore, the same may be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment reported as "Director General Anti-Corruption Establishment Lahore and others vs. Muhammad Akram Khan and others" (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 401).
4. 5.Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. 6.It is evident from the perusal of the contents of the impugned FIR that the same was lodged by the complainant on the ground that he has executed an agreement to sell with the petitioner in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos. 2041, 2046 and 2047, measuring 31/2 marlas, situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore and he (complainant) had paid the entire sale consideration, as well as, expenses for obtaining a fresh attested copy of Fard Malkiyat and for registration of the sale deed but inspite of that the petitioner has not executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant. It is, therefore, clear that it was a case of civil nature for specific performance of agreement to sell but the complainant instead of filling a civil suit against the petitioner has lodged the impugned order, in order to use the State machinery so that the petitioner may be pressurized to execute the sale deed in his favour. No criminal, offence is made out from the contents of the impugned FIR, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Reference in this context may be made to the judgments reported as "Umair Aslant vs. Station House Officer and 7 others" (2014 PCr.LJ 1305) & "Zahid Jameel vs. 'SHO. etc" (2009 Cr.LJ 290).
6. 7.It is by now well settled that mere submission of Callahan before the learned trial Court by itself is no ground to refuse the abashment of the FIR, when no criminal offence is made out from the contents of the same. No useful purpose shall be served by directing the petitioner to first avail the alternate remedy of filing a petition under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court. The proceedings in this case before the learned trial Court will amount to abuse of process of the law and the Court. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the judgments reported "Miraj Khan vs. Gul Ahmad and 03 others" (2000 SCM R 122) & "The State vs. Asif Ali Zardari and another" (1994 SCM R 798).
7. 8.Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No, 642/2016 dated 14.05.2016, offence under Section 420, PPC registered at Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore is hereby quashed.