' This judgment shall decide Writ Petition No,3654 of 2002 and Writ Petition No,3668 of 2002, as common questions are involved in both these cases.
2. The petitioners in these two cases feel aggrieved of a notice dated 17-12-2002, issued by respondent No,1, an official of NAB, calling upon Abdul Rauf, petitioner, to appear in his office on 19- 2-2002 and also to bring along Tariq Mehmood, petitioner.
3. In the writ petition it has been stated that late Col. Janjua had started a housing scheme and some land was purchased by him through the said petitioners. Said Janjooa died in the year 1993 and respondent No,2 filed an application before the President of Pakistan, which, according to the petitioners contains false allegation. This application was marked to Police Station Cantt., Rawalpindi whereby the petitioners were summoned and, according to the petitioners, they were harassed. A civil suit was filed claiming a permanent injunction. Status quo was issued. According to the petitioners, notice has been issued by the said respondent No,1, at the behest of respondent No,2, illegally.
4. In their written comments the official respondents have stated that no doubt a notice was issued pursuant to the said application (page 9 of the paper book) but during the course of inquiry it was found that the petitioners have committed offences under NAB Ordinance, 1999 and further that they are front men of public office holders. Respondent No,2 has also filed written statement. He has stated that criminal offences have been committed by the petitioners pertaining to his person and his property which were reported through the said application. It was marked to the police but the police was not allowed to proceed with the investigation inasmuch as a stay order was issued by the learned Civil Judge in the suit filed by the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the preamble and several other provisions of NAB Ordinance, 1999 argues that the contents of the said application/complaint, filed by respondent No,2, do not make out any offence mentioned either in section 9 or of the Schedule to the NAB Ordinance, 1999 and as such notice and other proceedings on the basis of said application and its contents against the petitioners, are without lawful authority. Learned Deputy P.-G. Has argued that no doubt the NAB has acted pursuant to the said complaint but, as stated in the comments, information has been collected which goes to show the commission of offences as defined in the NAB Ordinance. Learned D.A.-G. Particularly refers us to section 9 (a)(iii)(iv)(ix) and
(xi) of the NAB Ordinance to show that the contents of the said complaint do make out offences as defined in the said provisions of law.
6. Mr. Habib ul Wahab ul Khairi, Advocate contends that fraud has been played with his client and he has also been threatened and offences have been committed against person and property of his client and he had gone to normal investigating agencies under criminal laws of the country but those agencies were not allowed to proceed further and somehow or the other injunctive orders were obtained from the learned Civil Judge effectively staying the said investigation and proceedings. According to the learned counsel his client was constrained to make complaint before the President and matter had been marked to Agency concerned.
7. We have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and learned Law Officer. The application filed by the respondent No,2 expresses his personal grievance with relation to the acts allegedly committed by the petitioners with regard to his person, reputation and his property. We have minutely examined the A said complaint and we find that the ingredients of various clauses of section 9 (a) of NAB Ordinance, 1999 pointed out by the learned D.P.-G. Do not stand even spelt out from the said complaint. At the same time, we do find that the complaint does disclose commission of offences punishable under. P.P.C. Within the meaning of section 40 thereof.
8. We also do agree with Mr. Habib-ul-Wahab-ul-Khairi, Advocate, and learned counsel for respondent No,2 that the petitioners were able to obtain a restraint order fraudulently with regard to investigation in the said complaint of the respondent No,2. We have only to refer to section 56(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which places a complete bar upon issuance of any injunction restraining criminal proceedings. We, therefore, do observe and direct that the concerned police officers shall proceed further in this matter and carry out their investigation in accordance with law keeping in view the contentions of both the parties.
9. So far as the second contention of the learned D.P.G. Is concerned, as to availability of information that some offences as defined in the NAB Ordinance, do stand committed and some inquiry is necessary in the said matter. We observe if such is the case, there will be no bar upon the NAB to proceed further in the matter strictly in accordance with the said Ordinance.
10. With the above observations and directions both the writ petitions are disposed of.