' Through this petition the petitioner has sought quashment of F.I.R. No,210 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kamoki, District Toba Tek Singh on 11-6-2001 for offences under sections 440/148/149, P.P.C. In respect of an allegation regarding forcible possession of an Ihata. In support of this petition it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Ihata in question has been in the petitioner's possession since partition of the Sub-Continent in the year 1947; a civil suit regarding the said Ihata is already pending and an interim stay order has already been issued in favour of the petitioner in the said case; the proceedings initiated under section 145, Cr.P.C. In respect of the same Ihata have already been stopped by the Area Magistrate in view of issuance of a stay order by the learned Civil Court; and the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Are based upon distorted facts, fabricated evidence and sheer mala fide on the part of the complainant party.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the documents appended with this petition it has been noticed that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., if, accepted as correct at their face value, prima facie do disclose commission of the offences alleged in the F.I.R. The complainant of the said F.I.R. Has claimed that the Ihata in question had formally been allotted in his favour whereas the petitioner bases his claim over the said Ihata on account of his prolonged possession of the same. The question whether the allegations levelled by the complainant in F.I.R.
Are actually correct or not necessarily requires holding of a factual inquiry which exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in the present summary proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is a duty of the police to investigate a crime reported to it and this Court would not like to scuttle or stifle the said duty of the police at such a premature stage. At this stage the petitioner ought to be satisfying the Investigating Officer of the said criminal case and not this Court about the stated falsity of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.
3. Apart from what has been observed above the petitioner has many other remedies available to him and in view of availability of those statutory remedies the present petition is not even maintainable. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Haji Muhammad Sadiq v.
Ilaqa Magistrate, Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad and others 2001 PCr.LJ 1571, Farrukh Salim v. The State PLD 1997 Lah. 385 (D.B.) and Qaisar Mahmood v. Muhammad Shafi and another PLD 1998 Lah.
72.
4. It may be true that when a similar or identical matter is pending before a civil as well as a criminal Court then sometimes the proceedings before the criminal Court are stayed while awaiting decision of the civil Court. That surely is not the case in the present case. It is not disputed that the matter in the present case has not so far reached a criminal Court. In view of the provisions of section 56(e) of the Specific Relief c Act no injunction can be granted against criminal investigation. Even otherwise there is no universal principle that proceedings in a criminal case must necessarily be stayed when a similar or identical matter is pending before a Civil Court. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Syed Muhammad Ahmad v. The State 1972 SCMR 85, Muhammad Akbar v. The State and Maulvi Muhammad Yasin Khan PLD 1968 SC 281, Akhtar Hussain Zaidi v. The State PLD 1985 Lah. 662 and Mst. Nasreen Bibi v. Sub-Registrar/M.I.C.
Model Town, Lahore and 2 others 2000 YLR 47.
5. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that the investigation of this case has already been completed and a challan has been submitted before the criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. This information surely changes the completion of this petition before this Court inasmuch as the allegation to be faced the petitioner at this stage is not the one contained in the report under section 154, Cr.P.C. But the one contained in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Or a charge framed by the Court, if any. If that is the correct factual situation then the petitioner has a remedy available before the learned trial Court by way of submitting an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking his premature acquittal, if so advised.
6: As regards the alleged harassm ent being caused by the official respondents to the present petitioner suffice it to observe that any attempt made by the police to associate the petitioner with the investigation of the abovementioned criminal case cannot be termed or branded as unlawful harassm ent. Even otherwise if the official respondents are unjustifiably harassing the petitioner then the petitioner has remedies in that regard before the higher Police Authorities rather than approaching this Court in the first instance.
7. For what has been discussed above no occasion has been found by this Court for interference in the matter and this petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
8. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent No,2 for his information.