ORDERAHMAD SAEED AWAN, J.- This petition under section 199 of the Constitution Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been filed for quashment of the FIR No.662/1994 dated 5.12.1994 under Section 420/467/471/34 PPC registered at Police Station Samundari.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that there is a dispute between the complainant Bakrat Bibi respondent No.4 and Mst. Salma Bibi respondent No 2 relating to plot of land measuring 2 Kanal 9 marlas situated in Samundari District Faisalabad. As alleged, Barkat Bibi got agreement to sell dated 10.6.1990 and received the money amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- from petitioner No.2 Mst.
Salma Bibi were of petitioner No.1. The respondent No.4 failed to perform the contract and usurp the saidi money hence petitioner No.2 filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract in the Court of Senior Civil. Judge, Samundari on 13.3.1991. Mirza Saber Baig Advocate respondent No.4 entered appearance in the Court on 27.3.1991 but failed to file written statement on behalf of respondent No.4 in the said Court. The learned Civil Judge after recording the evidence of respondent No.2 decreed the suit ex-parte in favour of petitioner No.2 Mst. Salma Bibi and against respondent No.4 Mst. Barkat Bibi on 30.4.1991.3. The respondent No.4, as alleged in the FIR, that the petitioners prepared fictitious and forged documents bn 10.6.1990 pertaining to agreement to sell the disputed plot, she filed writ petition before the High Court and was directed by the learned Judge of the High Court to lodge the report hence the case FIR aforementioned was registered on the direction of the High Court. It is an admitted fact the during the preliminary investigation, the Investigating Officer discharged the case on 7.12.1994 and found the petitioners innocent. The respondent No.4, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application under section 12 [2] C.P.C, which is pending for adjudication in the Court of Civil Judge at Samundari.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 at the very out set vehemently contended that the Court is not competent to entertain the writ petition and is not empowered to interfere the investigation being held by the police and relied upon case Ghulam Akbar Versus Muhammad liyas end another [PLD 1975 Karachi 231] and Khawaja Fazal Kagm Versus State and another [1976 S.C.M.R. Page 461],
6. It has been held in case Ghulam Akbar Versus Muhammad liyas Supra that the Court should be reluctant to interfere in a case where a competent Court has after examining the evidence addressed before it come to the view that a prima-facie case is disclosed and has framed charges or summon the accused to appear unless it can be said that the charges in its face and the evidence, even if believed does not discharge any offence while in case Khawaja Fazal Karim's case Sypra it was observed that:it is well settled that the . Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561 CrP.C. Is neither alternative nor additional in its character and is to be rarely invoked only in the interest of justice".
7. The contention of the learned counsel indeed carries weight as ordinarily the High Court does not interfere in the investigation of a criminal case to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure if it comes to the view that a prima-facie case is disclosed but where the Court comes to a dear condusion without any manner of doubt that the accused persons are innocent and for that in any view of the matter their conviction is quite impossible it is duty bound to quash the criminal proceedings in accordance with law.
8. In case in hud, a competent civil court has already given its verdict and decree has been passed on 30.4.1991 in favour of the petitioner No.2 and agsiut respondent No.4 on the basis at agreement to sell dated 10A1990 while the FIR has been lodged relating to the plot after a period of nearly for years nfthout mentioning the finality of decree passed by the competent Court against the complainant respondent No.4. The respondent No. 4 as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed application under section 12 [2] Cr.P.C, if so, the proper forum to settle the issue whether any fraud has been committed or not by the petitioners is the Court which passed the decree cm the basis of agreement to sell and the criminal proceedings be initiated after; the decree has been passed by a competent Court It was held in case Mrs.KB.
Bogaand others Versus Ijaz Ahmad Khan Deputy Settlement Commissioner Lahore [1991 MJuD. 835 Lahore] that.
1 There can be no cavil with the proposition that fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings but then the question which arise is as to whether a matter which had attained fanalituy upto the level of the Supreme Court can be reopened on this ground by any other Court or authority. The answer to this question has to be in the negative. To allow a subordinate Court or any authority to interfere in such at matter would not only result any erosion of finality of the judgment but would also be barred by the general principles of readjudicate. The remedy of the affected persons in such cases lies in approaching the same Court or the Appellate Court, if any and not by separate proceedings in a lower forum."
1a case in had, the respondent No.1 to 3 are not competent to overrule and supersede the order passed by a competent Civil Court, any interference in the decree passed by a competent Court tentamotmts to contempt of Court and the act of the respondent No. 1 to 3 is nothing but transgration of the restriction and misuse of power which is unwarranted and deserves action.
9. As already observed, the proper forum to decide an issue is the Court which passed the decree or wherefrom it attained finality. If the Court before which application under Section 12 [2] CJP.C. Is pending comes to the conclusion, as alleged, that the document partaining to agreement to sell dated 10A1990 is forged (me and even the power of attorney filed by Mirza Sahar Bug Advocate is fictitious or he was not authorised by the complainant respondent No.4 can suo- moto initiate proceedings under Section 195 and 476 Cr.P.C, which me meant feu such purposes as the police is not competent to take the cognizance Of an offence which has berm committed during judicial proceedings before a competent Court.
10. The out come of the above discussion is that this petition is accepted and the impugned FIR is quashed with no order as to costs.