' This is a petition for quashment of proceedings in a complaint filed by Abdul Majid, respondent, against the petitioner and three others, pending trial in the Court of successor of Ch. Amir Ali, Magistrate Section 30, Jhang. According to the complainant the petitioner had sold two plots of land to him and his brother Abdul Hamid vide two separate sale-deeds, dated 10-1-1978 and the petitioner is alleged to have sold the same land to Sarfraz, Muhammad Hayat and Haq Nawaz, sons of Muhammad Ramzan (who were named as accused in the complaint but were not summoned after preliminary evidence by the learned Magistrate) vide sale-deed, dated 26-1-1981.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Sarfraz and his brothers had filed a civil suit against the respondent-complainant for a declaration that the land purchased by them belonged to them and that the suit was decreed in their favour on 18-2-1982. This suit was decreed on the statement of a referee appointed by both the partie to the suit, against which the complainant has not filed any appeal or revision. Learned counsel has referred to the three registered sale-deeds executed on behalf of the petitioner in favour of Abdul Majid complainant- respondent in this petition, his brother Abdul Hamid and Sarfraz etc. According to the registered sale-deeds in favour of Abdul Majid complainant and his brother Abdul Hamid, they were sold land from Khata No, 631/1574 of Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 while Sarfraz and his two brothers were sold land by the petitioner from Khata No, 208/465 of Jamabandi for the year 1968-69. The descriptions of the surroundings of the plots sold in favour of the complainant and his brother are different, than the plot sold to Sarfraz and his brothers. He has submitted that written sale-deeds clearly spell out that the land sold to Sarfraz and his brothers is entirely different from the land sold to the complainant and his brother and as such no case for any criminal action is made out.
3. Learned counsel for the State has not denied the factual position regarding Sarfraz etc. Having filed a civil suit against the complainant and the decree having been passed in their favour after the statement of the referee. He has also not been able to say anything regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land sold to Sarfraz and his brothers, was, from a different Khata and the land sold to the complainant and his brother was from another Khata.
4. Abdul Majid complainant-respondent, who is present in person, has not been able to say anything to controvert the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has, however, submitted----that the petitioner after the registration of case had executed an agreement in his favour that in exchange of the land, which he had sold to him and his brother, he will give some other land. But when he went to the revenue staff to verify, it was found that the land mentioned in the agreement was not owned by the petitioner. The respondent has vehemently stated that a fraud has been committed upon him.
5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that according to the documentary evidence, i.e, registered sale-deeds in favour of the complainant, his brother Abdul Hamid and Sarfraz etc., the land sold to Sarfraz etc. Is from a different Khata than the land sold to the complainant and his brother. As such, it cannot be said with any amount of certainty that the petitioner had sold the land to Sarfraz etc. Which the petitioner had already sold in favour of the complainant and his brother through registered sale-deeds. In this view of the matter, the proceedings pending before the trial Magistrate are merely an abuse of the process of law. The same are, therefore, quashed. This, however, does not mean that the respondent-complainant cannot seek remedies against the petitioner for fraud committed in any other way. The doors are open for him to proceed against the petitioner before proper forum. The petition stands accepted.