This Constitutional petition is filed for quashment of F.I.R. No. 125 of 1996, dated 15-4-1996 whereby a case was registered against the petitioners under section 420/468/469/471, P.P.C. At Police Station City Pattoki, District Kasur on the report of Fazal Din i.e. Respondent No.6.
2. It was alleged in the F.I.R. That the petitioner's deprived respondent No.6 of his property measuring about 10-1/2 acres through a forged General Power of Attorney dated 20-1-1990 executed in favour of petitioner No.2 namely Sana Ullah by the above said respondent and his brother Shah Muhammad.
3. It is contended in this petition that in fact the property detailed in the General rower of Attorney (Annexure-M) was situated in village Dhagg, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur and was owned by Shah Muhammad and Fazal Din sons of Ameera, caste Rajput as would be clear from Register Haqdaran for the year 1990-91 (Annexure-K) and for the year 1992-93 (Annexure-L). The respondents namely Fazal Din and Muhammad Shah sons of Ibraheem alias lbra, caste, Rajput were never allotted any property in village Dhagg, Tehsil Chunian, though they were allotted property in village Malka Hans, District Sahiwal.
3. That respondent No.6 made complaint to different authorities against the petitioners for defrauding him by converting the name of Shah Muhammad as Muhammad Shah, who had allegedly died in the year 1955-56 and could nor execute the General Power of Attorney on 21-1- 1990 as alleged by the other side. The same was, therefore, claimed to be bogus.
4. An inquiry in the matter was held by Tehsildar who allegedly found that the General Power of Attorney was bogus. The matter was put up before the Assistant Commissioner concerned, who directed that the case be registered. In the meantime, respondent Fazal Din made' an application Annexure-B to the Chief Minister and the same was marked by the Office of Chief Minister to A.C.
Concerned for taking necessary action in accordance with law.
5. It is submitted that according to Register Haqdaran for the year 1968-69 (Annexure-N), respondent No.6; his brothers Karim Din and Muhammad Shah i.e. Predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.7 and 8 were owners of land in village Hanjrai and that one of their brothers namely, Abdul Rashid held land in village Malka Hans vide Register Dakhal Kharijia. (Annexure-O).
As such the respondents aforesaid never held any land in the village Dhagg. This allegedly showed that the registration of case was not only mala fide but was result of political animosity between the Chief Minister and the petitioners, who are said to be political rivals Strangely enough on detail whatsoever, giver in the petition of the alleged political rivalry or mala fide action on the part of the Chief Minister except that a petition was made 'by respondent Fazal. Din to the Chief Minister, whereupon a functionary of the Chief Minister's Secretariat forwarded the said petition to Assistant Commissioner concerned with the direction to process it as per law'. According to the learned counsel such a direction was out come of political vendetta.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that since the case was false on its face in view of the documents referred to above and on account of political pressure, therefore, F.I.R. In question was liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on: --
(1) 1995 PCr.LJ 507 (Lahore),
(2) 1983 PCr.LJ 1891 (Lahore) and
(3) 1988 PCr.LJ 1575 (Lahore), to press the point that the F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed under the given situation.
7. The foregoing facts raise substantial disputes between the parties regarding title of the disputed land and its matter of acquisition, which cannot De readily answered through the findings upon this petition. It can only be settled after a proper judicial scrutiny for which appropriate forums exist.
In fact, the matter is already before such forums. A civil suit regarding title of the property is pending between the parties. The pleas of fraud and misrepresentation has also been raised therein. The impugned F.I.R. Gives detail regarding commission of forgery, cheating and fraud.
8. No doubt, the High Court has plenary Constitutional jurisdiction to interfere where the registration of a criminal case is patently false, malicious or mala fide. Nonetheless, interference should be rare and exceptional when an investigation regarding disputed question of fact necessities recording of evidence. In such a situation the matter should be left to be settled in the appropriate forum, which may be a civil or criminal or both. It should always be borne in mind that jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution should be objective in promoting the ends of justice and not to stifle the lawful action. The question of mala fide cannot be readily answered merely on-'account of the averments made to this petition. These will call for evidence to establish them. Apparently such an exercise cannot be undertaken in a writ petition. The F.I.R. In question prima facie gives detail of mens rea of the petitioners and as such law should be allowed to take its usual course. It will provide opportunity to both the parties to put their versions before the Investigating Agency, which of course shall take a final decision upon such inquiry or investigation. Any interference-at this stage is likely to prejudice or pre-empt such decision. The following references can be cited with advantage to support the above conclusion: --- (1)1988 PCr.LJ 1894 (Lahore) Rao Muhammad Yasin v. S.H.O Depalpur and others.
(2)1990 PCr.LJ 1845 (Lahore) Mst. Nasim Akhtar and 5 others v. S.H.O., Police Station Civil Lines, D.H.
Khan and 2 others.
(3)1990 PCr.LJ 201(Lahore) Faryad Hussain Bokhari v. The State.
(4) PLD 1978 Lah.1436 Mst. Fatima and others v. S.H.O. Police Station, Golra Sharif and 2 others.
9. The writ petition being merit less is dismissed in limine.