' This is a Constitutional petition filed by Sain and Piran Ditta, petitioners, praying the F.I.R. No, 571, dated 26-9-1987 registered on the complaint of the Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar, Sialkot at Police Station Hajipura, Sialkot City be quashed or set aside, or the names of the petitioners may kindly be deleted from the said F.I.R.
2. A sale-deed dated 26-2-1987 purporting to be executed by Muhammad Munawwar, Muhammad Ayub, Ghulam Sarwar and Javed Iqbal in favour of Sain and Piran Ditta, petitioners, purporting to transfer 11 Kanals and 8 Marlas of agricultural land in Mauza Ratala, Teshil and District Sialkot, in favor of the petitioners for Rs,80,000 was presented to the Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar, Sialkot, on 27-4- 1984 for registration and registered that day. Later, the real owners came to know that the said sale-deed was forged and bogus and had been presented by the petitioners for registration before the Tehsildar/Suli-Registrar, Sialkot, and that the petitioners were identified before him by Muhammad Yousaf, Councilor a grandson of Mehar Din, who was brother of Sain, petitioner. The Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar, Sialkot, summoned Sain and Piran Ditta, petitioners, and Muhammad Yousaf, Councilor, and recorded their statements. The petitioners admitted that they had managed to secure the sale-deed by impersonation and that Muhammad Yousaf, Councilor had identified them. Muhammad Yousaf, Councillor, in his statement, disclosed that he had identified the, impersonating petitioners on their request. Accordingly, the Tehsildar/SubRegistrar, Sialkot, filed a complaint with the Police Station against the petitioners and Muhammad Yousaf, Councilor, and others under section 420/468/471, P.P.C.
3. ''he case of the petitioners, as disclosed in paras. 4 to 7 of the petition, is that Muhammad Yousaf, Councilor, was the actual culprit, who had earlier secured a loan of Rs,40,000 from them purchasing a lathe machine and that when they hae demanded the money back from him, the said Muhammad Yousaf, Councilmen , had induced them to buy 11 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land which were available for purchase for Rs,80,000 in respect of which transaction they paid a father sum of Rs,40,000 to the said Muhammad Yousaf, Councilor, and that after receiving the full amount, the said Councilor took them hither and thither before various petition-writers and himself got some sale-deed registered. On the basis of the case pleaded in paras. 4 to 7, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that basically the petitioners were themselves the subject of fraud at the hands of Muhammad Yousaf, Councilor and that it was this person who was really responsible not only in extracting Rs,80,000 out of the petitioners, but also for perpetrating fraud on Ghulam Sarwar and others, the actual owners of the land. It is further contended that when the petitioners applied for pre-arrest bail (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1(X5-B of 1988) before this Court, the owners of the land appeared through their counsel to contest the petition, where they compromised the matter and directed the petitioners not to contest their suit. It is further submitted that when the suit filed by Ghulam Sarwar and others, the owners of the land, against the petitioners for the cancellation of the disputed sale-deed came up, the petitioners readily admitted that they were not the owners of the land, on the basis of which admission the suit of the owners was decreed. It is, therefore contended that the owners were basically the real complainants in the criminal case and they having compromised in the matter with the petitioners, should now be deemed in law to have compounded the offences and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to have the F.I.R. Lodged at the instance of the Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar quashed or their names be deleted therefrom.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to this case. This case has proceeded further since it was first admitted. The incomplete challan has also been filed in Court. It is not, therefore, possible to quash the F.I.R. Or to delete the names of the petitioners from the F.I.R., as prayed. The petitioners can take up whatever defences they want before the trial Magistrate, who, I am no doubt sure, would look into the matter. In view of this position, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.