' This order will dispose of Writ Petition No,2924 of 2000, through which Mian Muhammad Asif seeks quashment of F.I.R. No,29 of 2000 registered on 11-2-2000 under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C.
With Police Station Lytton Road, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Registered on the statement of Muhammad Amin Pasha were that on the basis of general power of attorney executed by Mst. Taj Begum, Muhammad Ishfaq, Mst. Farkhanda Anwar, Mst. Naseem, Mst. Shagufta and Mst. Khalida Shakoor widow, sons and daughters of Mian Muhammad Sharif, Mian Muhammad Asif entered into an agreement to sell two plots on 16-9-1996 for a consideration of Rs,16,50,000 through Shahbaz Estate Agency. Out of the total consideration, Rs,15,50,000 were paid in cash while Rs, one lac was paid through cheque drawn on National Bank of Pakistan, Samanabad Branch, Lahore. In fact, it was alleged in the F.I.R. That the general power of attorney in favour of Mian Muhammad Asif had been got cancelled by Mst. Farkhanda on 29-5-1996. On coming to know about this, Muhammad Amin Pasha, complainant tried to see Mian Muhammad Asif but met with success. It was also alleged in the F.I.R., that Mian Muhammad Asif had earlier sold two plots in September, 1995 to Muhammad Shakeel and Khalid Azeem for a consideration of Rs,16,50,000 for which a case vide F.I.R. No,86, dated 4-3-1998 was registered with Police Station Sanda, Lahore for cheating. Grievance of the complainant was that Mian Muhammad Asif knowing fully well that the general power of attorney in his favour having been cancelled, he carried the complainant and played fraud upon him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that the controversy whether Mian Muhammad Asif was competent to sell the plots in favour of complainant on the relevant date having been finalized by the Civil Court, criminal proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioner. He elaborates that both the documents, that is, the general power of attorney and the cancellation thereof by Mst. Furkhanda having been produced in Court in Civil Suit No,367-1 of 1995, in which final judgment had been rendered and now F.A.O. Having been decided by the High Court, section 195(1)(c) creates bar against registration of a criminal case. According to the learned counsel if the complainant Amin Pasha had any grievance, as alleged in the F.I.R.
The only remedy available with him (sic) the concerned Civil Court to draw a written (sic) he appropriate Investigating Authority. He submits that the bar against cognizance taken by Court also applies to criminal investigation because no challan can be submitted before any criminal Court on the basis of impugned F.I.R. Learned counsel next submits that complainant had purchased four plots. He received back the amount of two plots which fact has been suppressed in the F.I.R. The price of plots having decreased in the market, complainant is not entitled to put the machinery of law into motion to exert pressure to obtain refund of the amount. He lastly, submits that title of the plots sold to the complainant being clear, petitioner is not responsible for any fraud or cheating.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner knowing fully well that general power of attorney having been cancelled in his favour, fraudulently, sold the plots to the respondents. He reiterated the provision of sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. And submits that from a bare reading of the F.I.R., offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Fully attracted. Learned counsel also referred to F.I.R. No,86 of 1998 registered with Police Station Sanda to demonstrate that Mian Muhammad Asif is in the habit of doing such acts. Further states that quashment of F.I.R. No,86 of 1998 was sought through writ petition which was disposed of as Mian Muhammad Asif had returned the cheated amount to the effectees. Adds, that petitioner having not come to the Court with clean hands, is not entitled to any discretionary relief.
5. On 8-3-2000, in the presence of learned counsel for the parties, I had asked Mr. Azmat Saeed, Senior Legal Advisor, L.D.A. To ascertain as to whether the title of disputed plots was clear or not.
Today, Mr. Azmat Saeed, learned Legal Advisor appeared and submits that writ petition challenging acquisition proceedings with regard to the land in Mustafa Town is pending adjudication in the High Court and that in such an eventuality he is not in a position to state that title of the disputed plots are clear.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as to facts of the case and also on law are not relevant in the instant case. Section 195(1)
(c), Cr.P.C. Has nothing to do with the ,present case because the dispute before the Civil Court is between Asif and Furkhanda, complainant being not a party to the Civil Suit has nothing to do with that suit and the fact of the matter is that the general power of attorney given to Mian Muhammad Asif on 17-3-1991 was cancelled on 29-5-1996 but he knowing fully well that the power has been cancelled, sold two plots on 16-9-1996 to the complainant, four months after cancellation of the said power. The statement of Legal Advisor for the L.D.A. Is very much important and relevant in this case. It may also be mentioned here, that Muhammad Shakeel and Khalid Azeem were also cheated by Mian Muhammad Asif for which F.I.R. No,85 of 1998 was registered with Police Station Sanda, Lahore. Writ Petition No,4895 of 1998 seeking quashment was disposed of by my learned brother Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J. On the assurance of Mian Muhammad Asif that he was ready to pay the amount which he had received from the aforesaid defrauded persons. I have also asked if Mian Asif is ready to pay the amount to the complainant but he did not agree and submitted that if it is done, it will amount to opening of pandora box.
7. The case is still under investigation, the allegation levelled in the F.I.R., prima facie appears to be true. It was the duty of the petitioner to have informed the complainant before selling the plots that the general power of attorney in his name had already been cancelled but he did not do so. No case for quashment of the F.I.R. Is, thus, made out and writ petition is accordingly dismissed.