' Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner seeks quashment of case. F.I.R. No, 144 registered on 10-4-2002 under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. At Police Station Kotwali District Jhang on the statement of Mansoor Ahmad.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the application was moved by Manzoor Ahmad in which it was alleged that Liaqat Ali, Shamim Ahmad and Zafar Iqbal had prepared the partnership deed registered vide No,5226 on 28-10-1978 which is forged document whereas no such deed was ever executed and it has been prepared in order to grab the property of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the writ petition in the High Court was filed by respondent No,2 for seeking direction for the registration of the criminal case by concealing the true facts and the registration of the F.I.R. Is with mala fide intention whereas civil suits regarding the same document were filed by the petitioner and respondent No,2 which were consolidated and were decided through judgment and decree dated 13-3-1996; that issue No,1 was framed regarding the document Shirakat Nama dated 28-10-1978 to determine whether it was executed or not which was decided by the learned Civil Judge in favour of the petitioner declaring that the partnership deed dated 11-11-1978 was validly executed between the parties and the same still exists; that aggrieved by the said judgment and decree two appeals were filed by respondent No,2 which were also dismissed vide judgment dated 2-6-1999 where against Civil Revision No,1150 of 1999 was dismissed too in limine by this Court declaring that the partnership deed is valid document in para. 4 of the judgment dated 20-9-1999. Learned counsel further contends that after failing from the civil side this criminal case has been got registered by respondent No,2 which is liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No,2 has contended that facts were not concealed while filing the writ petition for the registration of the criminal case whereupon direction was issued to the S.H.O. Who registered the case. It is further contended that it has been wrongly mentioned that the partnership deed was executed between the parties as the record of the stamp vendor showed that stamp paper was not issued by him and it was wrongly shown by him that it was issued, thus fraud was committed which is liable to be investigated %id thorough investigation is required to be conducted on the criminal side to unearth the truth while the judgment and decrees on the civil side do not shut down the criminal proceedings which can be initiated even after the decision of the. High Court and more so the executing Court has also directed, for the production of the register of the documents if any.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. In the suits filed by the petitioner and respondent No,2 vide judgment dated 13-3-1996 the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Jhang while deciding Issue No,1 regarding the validity of the partnership deed held that partnership deed dated 11-11-1978 was validly executed between the parties which still exists. The same judgment and decree was challenged by respondent No,2 through two separate appeals which were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2-6-1999 and there against civil Revision No,/150 of 1999 filed by respondent No, 2 was also dismissed on 29-9-1999 by this Court while holding in para. 4 of the said judgment that the partnership deed Exh.P1 is a valid document. The registration of the case after the decision of the civil suits upto the level of this Court declaring the same document to be validly executed is abuse of process of law and with mala fide intention as the judgments on the civil side have attained the finality, thus initiation of the criminal proceedings is declared as illegal and unlawful. This writ petition is accepted and F.I.R. No,144 of 2002 registered at Police Station Kotwali Jhang is quashed.