MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---- Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.116/2018 dated 16.04.2018 under sections 420/460/471, P.P.C. registered at police station City Wazirabad, 'District Gujranwala, on the ground that FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence and the complainant has tried to convert civil litigation into criminal dispute. Further argued that in the light of Section 44, Cr.P.C. the respondent No.3-complainant could not get lodged the FIR.
2. Heard.
3. I will not like to make any comment on the factual aspects and would confine myself to observe that from bare reading of the FIR certain offences are made out, this fact is further left to be decided by the Investigating Office and the learned trial court.
4. It is settled principle of law that criminal and civil litigation can proceed simu ltaneously . In the case "Seema Fareed and others v . The State and another " (2008 SCMR 839 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-- "It is well-settled that, a criminal case must be allowed to proceed on its own merits and merely because civil proceedings relating to same transaction have been instituted it has never been considered to be a legal bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings which can proceed concurrently because conviction for a criminal offence is altogether a different matter from the civil liability . While the spirit and purpose of criminal proceedings is to punish the offender for the commission of a crime the purpose behind the civil proceedings is to enforce civil rights arising out of contracts and in law both the proceedings can co-exist and proceed with simultaneously without any legal restriction."
However , there exists only one probability that the decision of the civil suit has direct bearing on the criminal trial, then at the most proceedings in the criminal case can be stayed to wait for the ultimate fate of the civil suit. Even when the matter is under investigation the court could not strangulate the proceedings of investigation agency as it may prejudice the rights of the parties to the case. Furthermore, if during the course of investigation no evidence is collected by the I.0 then accused may apply for bail before the appropriate forum. In the matter of quashing of FIR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Col. Subah Sadiq v. M. Ashiq and others " (2006 SCMR 276), has held that:- "If prima facie an offence has been comm itted, ordinary course of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court."
Further , it was held that:- "The learned High Court had no jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR by appreciation of the documents produced by the parties without providing chance to cross-examine or confronting the documents in question. Respondents had alternate remedy to raise objection at the 'time of framing the charge against them by the trial Court or at the time of final disposal of the trial after recording the evidence. Even otherwise, respondents have more than one alternative remedies before the trial Court under the Cr.P.C. i.e. sections 265-K, 249-A or to approach the concerned Magistrate for cancellation of the case under provisions of Cr . P. C."
The apex Court thus concluded that the trichotomy of powers which is already delicately balanced in the Constitution, cannot be disturbed as it grants powers to each organ to decide the maters in its allotted sphere.
5. So far as the argument with reference to Section 44, Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same has no force at all, because section 44, Cr.P.C. only bounds "every person" that sooner he becomes aware of the commission or even intention of other person to commit any offence punishable under certain sections specified in this provision, he shall forthwith' give information to the nearest Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, or police officer of such commission or intention. This is a special clause binding every person to provide information, but does not bar that only the aggrieved person or a direct effect could get lodged the FIR. Section 154, Cr.P.C., not only has much 'broader scope and implications, the same also is not to be considered as subservient to section 44, Cr.P.C. As discussed above, section 44, Cr.P.C., on the face it places an obligation only to the persons who become aware of commission or intention of commission of certain offences, that they shall lay information to the concerned authorities and if he does not do so, then obligation would be on that person to come out with a reasonable excuse for his inaction in the above term, whereas, section 154, Cr.P.C., comparatively carries large connotations as it covers "every information", not limited to the specific sections, as has been done in section 44, Cr.P.C. In any way, both Sections 44 and 154, Cr.P.C., are meant to set the criminal law into motion and to furnish legal basis for conducting investigation in case of commission of cognizable offence, as held by a learned Division Bench of this Court in the case " Ch. Muhammad Aslam v . C.P .O. Rawalpindi and others "(201 1 PCr .LJ 1870).
6. For what has been discussed above, neither on merits nor on legal premises, the petitioner has any case for quashing of FIR. This IE petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine.