1. ' This petition has been filed by Haji Abdul Latif Mernon against Director of Anti-Corruption and Superintendent Police, Anti-Corruption with the prayer that Director, Anti-Corruption may be directed to finalise the process on the complaint of the petitioner and that F.I.R. May be recorded and further action as per law be taken.
2. ' The facts in short are to the effect that the petitioner is father of Abdul Aziz Memon who was married to Dr. Farzana Naz Thaim. Abdul Aziz died` on 13-7-1996 leaving behind some agricultural land in Taluka Khairpur. It is alleged in the petition that widow of deceased Abdul Aziz managed to obtain a false heir ship certificate from First Class Magistrate, Karachi East on the basis of which the property of late Abdul Aziz was mutated in the names of his widow and two minor sons and thereby excluded the petitioner and his wife (father and mother respectively of the deceased). The heir ship certificate was termed to be a bogus and false one, arranged by Ashiq Hussain Thaim, father of Dr. Farzana Naz Thaim, widow of deceased Abdul Aziz.
3. ' The petitioner moved an application to the Anti-Corruption Authorities and also moved the Revenue Authorities for correction of the record. The petitioner alleged that Ashiq Hussain, against whom there was an allegation of wrong doing, had earlier filed C.P. No,405 of 1997 in which the petitioner was respondent No,2 and in that petition Ashiq Hussain Thaim had sought a direction that he should not be harassed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 (Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Sukkur and the petitioner respectively). Such petition was disposed of on 30-12-1997 when a statement was made that respondent No,1 shall not harass the petitioner and that no inquiry into the application of respondent No,2 shall be made. It was also observed that a statement was made by respondent No,1 that the grievance of Ashiq Hussain Thaim had been redeemed in respect of the mutation of the property which was finally settled by the Revenue Authorities.
4. ' Subsequently, an application for contempt of Court was moved by the petitioner in C.P. No,405 of 1997 when the Anti-Corruption Establishment wanted to proceed in the inquiry against him.
5. However, an undertaking was given and apology was tendered by the alleged condemners which was accepted as the Anti-Corruption Authorities has stated that the Department shall not conduct any further inquiry in the matter, which was already closed. The contempt application was also disposed of in the above manner.
6. ' Now it appears that some inquiry is being conducted on the application of the petitioner but due to the orders passed in C.P. No,405 of 1997, no further action is being taken.
7. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, wants a specific order from this Court in this petition that such inquiry must reach its logical conclusion.
8. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.A.-G., I have no hesitation to express that if some criminal offence is committed that should not be hushed up and action must follow on the same under law. In the comments filed by the State in this petition all the facts of Petition No,405 of 1997 were brought to the notice of this Court and it was also disclosed that both the parties were engaged in civil litigation in respect of the property in dispute.
9. Without observing in any way in respect of the rights of the parties in civil litigation, it is observed that if criminal offence is made out against any of the parties, the Anti-Corruption Establishment or any other police agency cannot be stopped from proceeding in accordance with Criminal Procedure Code as a result of the evidence collected by such Agency. The remedy for the persons against whom such criminal action is likely to be started is to approach the concerned Court.
10. ' Consequently, this petition is disposed of with the observation that the respondents could not be restrained from taking action under the provisions of law against anybody as the same is the lawful duty of the respondents. However, the respondents cannot be permitted to be vindictive or act in violation of the legal provisions and procedure.