RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.10.1993 passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby he dismissed W.P. No. 1050 of 1992, seeking quashment of FIR No. 118, dated 11.3.1992.
2. Brief facts stated in the FIR are that the complainant's mother alienated to the complainant the land measuring 56 kanals and 8 marlas by way of Tamleek in 1986. Since it was jointly owned by his maternal unde Bahawal Bakhsh, he filed a partition suit, which was decreed in his favour. One month prior to the occurrence, the appellant Mian Ghulam Yasin came to him and asked him to transfer the land in his favour free of any cost by way of Jaggo. Tax. When he refused, the appellant threatened him with dire consequences. Two days before the lodging of the FIR, he showed respondent No. 2 the order of the Civil Court Multan, which restrained him from further transferring the land. When he approached the Court, it came to his knowledge that the-accused in collusion with each other, fabricated an agreement to sell and on the basis of it, Khan Muhammad accused filed a suit for specific performance.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not a party to the agreement of sale; that he had not even signed that; that except Section 420 PPC, all other offences were not cognizable and in to assume the authority, an. Application was filed before the Ilaqa Magistrate, wherein permission was sought to investigate the matter; the learned Magistrate without any application of mind and in a machinical manner, allowed to do so; that no cognizable offence was made out from the contents of the FIR and that the case was the result of mala fide find was registered to subject the appellant to unnecessary harassment.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that in fact, the appellant was the main culprit in the case. He first attempted to obtain one kanal of land gratis but when h8 failed in his machinatio as, he colluded with the other accused to prepare a forged agreement of sale and was instrumental in filing the suit for specific performance so as to compel respondent No. 2 to yield to his demands.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. From the perusal of the FIR, it appears that the appellant was desirous to get one kanal of land alienated to. Him free of any cost and when he failed in his plan, he forged an agreement of sale to enable his co-accused Khan Muhammad to file a suit for specific performance who succeeded in obtaining the temporary injunction restraining the respondent to further alienate his own land. l is evident from the record that it was he who appeared before the Halqa Patwari to transmit the information that respondent No. 2 had allegedly transferred the land to Khan Muhammad.
7. The appellant has not appeared before the Investigating Officer even once-. He may join the investigation to avail of the opportunete of vindicating his position.
8. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge exercised his discretion properly while dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.