SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.--- Leave is sought against the order dated 20.4.2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in I.C.A. No. 271 of 2000.
2. The relevant facts are that on the death of Mian Muhammad Sharif, the father of Mian Muhammad Asif petitioner herein, all the legal heirs of Mian Muhammad Sharif afore-mentioned appointed the petitioner as their General Attorney through a registered document dated 17.3.1991 to manage control and deal with the property left by their predecessor- ininterest namely Mian Muhammad Sharif. In pursuance of the said Power of-Attorney the petitioner obtained allotment of some plots from the L.D.A. In lieu of the land left by Mian Muhammad Sharif and sold two plots on the strength of afore-mentioned General Power-of- Attorney to Muhammad Amin Pasha respondent No. 4 herein, on 16.9.1996. The latter, however, got a criminal case registered against the petitioner on 112-2000, bearing F.I.R. No. 29/2000, under sections 420, 467, 471, PPC at Police Station Lytton Road, Lahore, alleging that the petitioner was not competent to sell the plots to him as Power-of-Attorney on the basis of which he had sold the plats had been revoked by his sister Mst. Farkhanda Anwar prior to the said sale. Muhammad Amin Pasha respondent alleged that though the factum of the revocation of Power-of-Attorney was in the knowledge of the petitioner yet he sold the plots to him.
3. The petitioner filed a Constitutional petition in the High Court for quashment of the FIR dated 11.2.2000, which was dismissed. He then filed an Intra-Court Appeal in the High Court, which, too, met the same fate. Hence, this petition.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that:-
(a) the learned High Court did not consider that the petitioner had been appointed as Attorney by the six heirs of late Mian Muhammad Sharif in respect of his entire estate and not by Mst.
Farkhanda Anwar alone and the revocation of General Power-of Attorney by her could not have affected his authority to dispose of the plots obtained in lieu of the estate of Mian Muhammad Sharif; and
(b) that in the Civil Suit filed by Mst. Farkhanda Anwar against the petitioner a referee was appointed who rendered his award which was made rule of the Court, with the consent of the parties by order dated 18.2.2000.
One of the terms of the settlement with Mst. Farkhanda Anwar was to the following effect:- "..... All the transactions made by defendant No. 1 on the basis of disputed general power-of- attorney executed by the plaintiff in his favour, shall he valid and the plaintiff shall be bound by them . .... 11
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that after the above declaration and settlement Muhammad Amin Pasha respondent is left with no grievance about the authority and competency of the petitioner to sell the plots referred to above in his favour. He maintains that since the dispute relating to the genuineness or otherwise of the Power-of-Attorney had been subject-matter of litigation in the Civil Suit, Section 195(1)(c) bars the taking of cognizance by the Court except on the complaint in writing of the said Civil Court or of some other Court to which that Court was subordinate. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no wrongful loss had been caused to the respondent by the sale of the plots in his favour, as the same were still with him and no one has challenged the same after the settlement of the dispute by the Civil Court. He is merely blackmailing the petitioner, it is added.
6. Leave is granted to consider legality of the registration of criminal case against the petitioner on the above facts and circumstances. Further action on the basis of the FIR in question is stayed till the disposal of the Appeal.