' Applicant Ahmed Bin Salcem seeks quashment of proceedings pending against him and others in the Court of A.C.M. IVth (East), Karachi, under sections 420, 447, 468 and 471, P.P.C., initiated on the report of respondent No,3 on the ground that the allegations made against him do not constitute any criminal offence
(2) He said Mazhar Abbas has settled in Canada and had not visited Pakistan since 1972. It is alleged that somebody by impersonating Mazhar Abbas sold this plot to Syed Noor Ahmad, respondent No,2, on the strength of forged documents, who in turn transferred the same to applicant Ahmed Bin Salecm. This fact came to the notice of Wahid Hussain, attorney of Mazhar Abbas, when he saw the applicant raising construction on this plot. He, therefore, lodged such F.I.R.
(Crime No, 585 of 1985) at Korangi Police Station. A Suit bearing No, 979 of 1985, was also filed by respondent No,3 against applicant and others, touching the same subject-matter, which is pending decision before this Court.
3. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he being a bona fide purchaser was not a party to the alleged fraud and forgery committed by others. It is also pleaded on behalf of the applicant that the liability, if any, is purely of civil nature and the parties have already resorted to civil litigation.
4. The report in this case was lodged on 27-10-1985. The investigation carried out by Korangi Police has revealed that applicant Ahmed Bin Saleem was also involved in this case and this is why he was sent up alongwith Syed Noor Ahmad, respondent No,2, to stand trial for the said offence. The extent to which the witnesses should be believed can only be determined after the case proceeds before the trial Court.
5. The Scope of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was examined by the Sepreme Court in the case of Ghtilam Muhammad v. Muzammil Khan and 4 others reported in PLD 1967 SC 317 and it was observed.
"The inherent jurisdiction given by section, 561-A Cr.P.C. Is not an alternative jurisdiction:or an additiimal jurisdiction but it is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress grievances for which no other procedure is available or has been provided by the Code itself. The power given by this section can certainly not be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute. The High Court as has repeatedly been pointed out in a number of decisions, should be extremely reluctant to interfere in a case where a competent Court has, after examining the evidence adduced before it, come to the view that a prima facie case is disclosed and has framed charge or summoned the accused to appear, unless it can be said that the charge on its face or the evidence, even if believed, does not disclose any offence."
6. In the case of Raja Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Afzal and others, reported in PLD 1967 SC 354, it was further observed.
"Quashment of proceedings at so early a stage gives an unfortunate impression of stifling of criminal prosecutions, by exercis of an extraordinary power which is given for the dispensation of complete justice, in the forms provided by law. It is necessary that these cases should be examined further, to ensure that the course of even-handed justice has not been prejudiced."
7. The cases reported as Mohsin Ali and another v. The State 1972 SCMR 229, Abdul Rehman v.
Muhammad Hayat Khan etc. 1980 SCMR 311, Marghoob Alam and another v. Shams Din and another 1969 SCMR 303 and Akhtar Hussain Zaidi v. The State, PLD 1985 Lah. 662 are also relevant.
In the last cited authority it was observed that mere tiling of a civil suit is not a bar to the continuation of a criminal case.
8. There appears prima facie evidence against the applicant for a criminal charge. In such a situation the cases reported as Haider Ali v. Khudadino and C another 1976 P Cr. L J.195, Mst. Kamila Khatoon and another v. The State and another 1982 P Cr. L J 1035, Qaisar Salcem and 2 others v. Hashim Hussain and another 1986 P Cr. L J 33, Muhammad Iqbal Toor v. Mian Muhammad Ashraf 1986 P Cr. L J 503 and Syed Muhammad Hasseenuddin and 2 others v. The State and 2 others 1987 P Cr. L J 2096 relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable.
9. Mr. Rashid A Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the main question involving in criminal case as well as civil suit being one and the same, the proceedings in criminal Court deserved to be stayed till the disposal of civil suits. Reliance is placed upon Gulzar Ahmad v. The State and another, reported in 1983, P Cr. L J 775, and Haji Muhammad Altaf Janjua and 2 others v. The .State and 2 others, reported in 1984 P Cr. L J 641. The answer to this contention is provided by Syed Muhammad Ahmad v. The State, reported in 1972 SCMR 85 in which it was observed that there was no invariable rule that criminal proceedings be postponed pending disposal of civil litigation.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I see no substance in this application filed! E under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Which is accordingly dismissed.