' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 8150 of 1995, 8765 of 1995 and 17115 of 1996 as they involve common questions of law and fact between the same parties.
2. The petitioners through these Constitutional petitions seek the quashment or in the alternative the stay of Police investigation of F.I.Rs, Nos. 149 of 1995, 194 of 1996, Police Station Kotwali and F.I.R.
No,219 of 1995, Police Station Jhang Bazar, Faisalabad registered against the petitioner under Sections 419/420/467/468/471, P.P.C. The Police investigation of these and other connected cases could not be finalised, as the same had been stayed by interim orders of this Court.
3. The relevant facts of the cases as set out in these petitions are that by registered sale-deeds dated 21-9-1994 and 22-9-1994 executed by the complainant Muhammad Arif Wahla as general attorney of Muhammad Amin, the petitioners respectively purchased with possession two plots of land one measuring 6 Marlas and the other measuring 3 Marlas and 7 Sarsaies situated at Chak No,220/R.B., Jamalpur, Tehsil and District Faisalabad. A dispute between the parties arose. The petitioner No,1 lodged F.I.R. No,147 of 1995, dated 8-6-1995 under section 419/420/467/471, P.P.C. At Police Station Kotwali, Faisalabad, against Muhammad Arif Wahla and Muhammad Amin at whose instance three cases, the subject-matter of these petitions, were registered against the petitioners.
The petitioner No,1 as also Muhammad Amin filed two civil suits which are pending before a learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad.
4. S. Salamatullah and Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocates, the learned counsel for the petitoners argued that the criminal cases against the petitioners were registered as counter-blasts to the one already lodged by the petitioner No,1. It was contended that the petitioners were bona fide purchasers of the property in dispute for value and the dispute being of a civil nature was pending before the civil Court where question of title of property would also be determined. The learned counsel submitted that in these circumstances the registration of criminal cases and the Police investigation against the petitioners was required to be quashed or stayed by this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in view of the pendency of civil litigation. They relied on the cases of Faqir Muhammad and others v. Ch. Ali Muhammad and others (1992 PCr.LJ 1085), Abdul Haleem v. The State (1982 SCMR 988), Muhammad Tufail v. The State and another (1979 SCMR 437) and Muhammad Akbar v. The State (PLD 1968 SC 281).
5. The learned Additional/Assistant Advocates-General as also the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the F.I.Rs, registered against the petitioners disclosed the commission of cognizable offences which required proper police investigation. They argued that neither the quashment nor the stay of investigation of the F.I.Rs, in question called for by this Court in writ jurisdiction merely on the ground of pendency of civil litigation. The cases of Ghulam Qasim v. Nazir Ahmad and others (1996 PCr.IJ. 1187), Mrs. Shamsun Nisa Bakhtiar and another v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ 2451) Tahir-ul-Islam v. The State (1984 PCr.LJ. 274) and Ahmad Saeed v. The State (1996 SCMR 186) were relied on. The learned Law Officers stated that connected Writ Petitions Nos.7739 of 1995 and No,23149 of 1996 have already been disposed of by this Court today on their statement that investigation of all these connected F.I.Rs, would be conducted and completed within a period of sixty days by Mr. Salahud-Din Niazi, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Headquarters, Lahore.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The First Information Report against the petitioners, prima facie, disclose the commission of cognizable offences. These cases require police investigation to be conducted to A find out the truth in which the petitioners may or may not be found involved. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances the interference with police investigation or stifling the prosecution by this Court is not warranted. See the cases.Of Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another (PLD 1971 SC 677), Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar, etc. v. The State (PLD 1994 SC 281) and Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v,.
Government of Pakistan (1994 SCMR 2142).
7. It seems to be unfair on the part of the Police to have registered F.I.R. No,147 of 1995 at the instance of the petitioner No,1 on 8-5-1995 but to delay the registration of F.I.R. No,149 of 1995 till 10- 6-1995 against the petitioners despite the order dated 8-6-1995 by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Therefore, it cannot be said that registration of criminal cases against the petitioners was a measure of counter-blast.
8. I also find that it was the petitioners' side which took the initiative to resort to registration of a criminal case and civil litigation simultaneously. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the police investigation being carried despite pendeny of civil litigation. Similarly, the First Information Reports disclosing the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners could not be quashed or stayed merely on ground of pendency of civil litigation between the parties. The object and purpose of police investigation of a criminal offence is distinct and different than that of civil litigation. The reliance of the reported cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners was not helpful or apt. The question of quashment of an F.I.R. Or stay of police investigation by this Court was not %volved in these precedent cases. Moreover, it has also been held therein that normally criminal proceedings should not be postponed pending the disposal of civil litigation connected with the same subject-matter unless the criminal liability is dependant' upon the result of civil litigation or is so intimately connected with it that there is a danger of grave injustice being done. I do not see how the petitioners are likely to be prejudiced if the police investigation into the criminal cases by or against them is conducted to their logical conclusions which would also not affect the civil litigation. In these matters, the police investigation has not been completed the same having been stayed by the interim orders of this Court. The question of fixation of criminal liability has yet not arisen. The same does not appear to me to be dependent upon or intimately connected with the result of civil litigation betweent the parties.
9. The connected Writ Petitions Nos.7739 of 1995 and No,23149 of 1996 have since been disposed of today. The police would be conducting the investigation of F.I.Rs, of those cases. It would not be a proper exercise of discretion to interfere in these matters to produce inconsistent results. The learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to point out any jurisdictional defect or infraction of a mandatory provision of law in the registration of cases or investigation of criminal cases so as to warrant indulgence of this Court if Constitutional jurisdiction. In an appropriate case, it may be possible for the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. To stay the criminal proceedings of a subordinate Criminal Court pending a civil litigation but the question of quashment of an F.I.R.
Or the stay of police investigation does not arise. See the cases of Ahmad Saeed, Tahir-ul-Islam, Mrs. Shamsun Nisa Bakhtiar (supra), Muhammad Khalid Mukhtar v. The State through Deputy Director, F.I.A. (C.B.A.) Lahore (PLD 1997 SC 275), Malik Khuda Bakhsh v. The State (1995 SCMR 1621), Aabid A. Butt v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 22), Mirza Naseem Baig v. Muhammad Iqbal (1981 SCMR 315), Raja Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Afzal and others (PLD 1967 SC 354), Ghulam Muhammad v.
Muhammad Khan and 4 others (PLD 1967 SC 317) and Akhtar Hussain Zahid v. The State (PLD 1985 Lahore 662).
10. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in these petitions which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.