1. ' This quashment application is directed against the impugned order, dated 21-11-1998 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge (South), Karachi. The relief sought by the applicant. Is to set aside the aforesaid impugned order and quash the proceedings registered against the applicants on the basis of a direct complaint filed by respondent No,2.
2. ' The respondent No,2 is the real daughter of applicant No,
1. The respondent No,2/complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) and her mother had embraced Islam and separated themselves from him as the applicant No, 1 was still Qadiani. The complainant and her mother remained in exclusive possession of Plots Nos. 124, 134 and 135 of Mujahid Colony, Karachi. s The said plots were leased out in the name of complainant and her mother by K.M.C. On 14-5-1995.
3. Three lease deeds were executed in their favour. According to complainant the applicant No, 1 was well-aware of these facts, as notices were published in daily Newspaper 'Hurriyat' dated 30-4-1995; On the same date the notice regarding the lease of Plot No, 125 in the name of applicant No, 1 was also published and he got the lease executed in his favour on the same day before Sub-Registrar This newspaper cutting is produced on record. The applicant No, 1 in spite of the fact that he was in knowledge of the aforesaid lease of plots in favour of complainant, got the lease deed executed in his favour from K.M.C. In the year 1998. The complainant therefore, filed a direct complaint under sections 420, 468, 471 and 474, P.P.C. In the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South).
4. Statement of complainant was recorded and after holding preliminary enquiry, the case was registered against applicants Nos.1 and 2 on 21-11-1998 and. Director of Katchi Abadi.
5. The complainant has also filed two suits bearing Nos.174 of 1998 and 643 of 1998 in Courts of 7th Senior Civil Judge and 1st Senior Civil Judge, West, Karachi respectively in regard to Plots Nos. 124, 134 and 135 situated in Sector 4-F of Mujahid Colony, Orangi Township, Karachi. The record shows that defendants Nos.3 and 4,. K.M.C. Officials have submitted their written statement in the aforesaid suit and have admitted therein as under:-- "In the instant it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendants Nos.1 and 2 of the suit knowingly, purposely on the production of fictitious documents and concealing of the facts obtained lease and as such the leases given to the defendants Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be cancelled by this Hon'ble Court as lease once executed could only be cancelled through process of law. In lease camp the leases were given in good faith relying on the documents - which may kindly be cancelled as there is no late to amend the mistake."
6. ' The quashment mainly sought by the applicants Nos.1 and 2 is on the ground that this is a civil dispute and that the civil suits are pending between the parties, therefore, the criminal case is not competent and is brought only for the purpose to cause undue harassment to the applicants.
7. ' It is true that civil suits are pending in between the parties in respective Courts but the fact remains that the applicants knowingly and deliberately got the plots leased out to them on the basis of forged documents and false statements. The plots in question were leased out to complainant and her mother Mst. Surriya on the same day on which Plot No,125 was also leased out to applicant No, 1 (the father of complainant). The newspaper produced on record shows that the publication of plot of complainant was just below the news printed in favour of applicant No,1 and further plots were leased out by K.M.C. On the same day to complainant as well as to her father, the applicant No,
1. Again on the same day the lease deeds were executed in favour of complainant and applicant No,1.
8. ' It is contended that the civil suits in respect of disputed properties are pending and, therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings is not warranted by law. Further, it is argued that direct complaint under sections 420, 468, 471 and 474 cannot be filed by a private person unless the direct complaint is filed by a public servant before whom the forgery has taken place and the cognizance can only be taken if the complaint is filed as required by section 195(c), Cr.P.C. The contention is that the applicants have not committed any forgery and that the registered lease deeds were executed by K.M.C. Authorities in their favour. It is further argued that since the civil litigations were .Pending adjudication, the criminal action by the 'Additional Sessions Judge was not justified. The quashment of direct complaint is sought on the aforesaid grounds. Learned A.A.-G. Has supported the impugned order on the grounds that the applicant No,1 had the knowledge of previous lease order in favour of complainant and her mother but in spite of that, he knowingly got the plots leased out in his favour by K.M.C. Authorities suppressing all the aforesaid facts. Moreover, K.M.C.
9. Authorities have filed their written statement and have taken the plea that applicant No, 1 had deliberately suppressed the previous lease in favour of complainant and her mother and obtained lease on production of fictitious documents and concealing the true facts from them. They further pleaded that the lease in favour of applicant No, 1 be cancelled.
10. The point No, 1 raised by learned counsel for the applicants that the civil suit is pending adjudication and, therefore, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against the applicant is untenable, in view of the fact that the authorities who had leased out the plots in favour of applicant No, 1 had conceded to the contentions of complainant and have admitted that the plots in question were earlier leased out to complainant and her mother. They have further asserted in their written reply that the true facts were concealed from them and the fabricated documents were produced before them. The next point raised before me is that direct complaint cannot be filed under' sections 420, 468, 471 and 474, P.P.C. Unless the complaint is filed by a public servant under section 195(c), Cr.P.C. Has no force in it as sections 420, 468 and 474 are not controlled by subsection 1(c) of section 195, Cr.P.C.
11. After considering the arguments advanced before me and looking to the circumstances of present case 1 am of the I, opinion, that only pendency of civil suit 11 would be no bar to criminal action.
12. Although, the line of division between civil right and criminal liability is very thin but in case it is found that fraud and forgery had been committed, the offences committed under the sections of P.P.C. Can be tried by Criminal Courts. Apparently the applicant No, 1 had got the plots leased out in his favour and the record indicates that he was in knowledge of earlier lease granted in favour of complainant and her mother. This fact lends support from the versions of K.M.C. Authorities.
13. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the applicant No, 1 had committed no forgery or fraud. It can only be decided when the evidence is recorded by trial Court. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court can only be exercised when the proceedings initiated were abuse of process of Court or that otherwise it is necessary to secure the ends of justice and give effect to any order. The abovementioned principles are not appearing in this case and the direct D complaint is pending at its initial stage. The complainant has been examined, preliminary enquiry has been held and after considering their statements, the case has been registered against applicants. It would be, therefore, not proper and justified to stifle the smooth working of trial Court and quash the proceedings pending in competent criminal Court, having the jurisdiction to try the case. The proceedings initiated against the applicants are neither illegal nor amount to abuse of process of Court.
14. ' In view of the above circumstances, the quashment application merits no justification and is dismissed.