' The brief facts out of which, the present writ petition arises are that Haji Muhammad Yousaf owned land measuring 345 Kanals, 17-1/2 Marlas alongwith Havelies and houses situated in Tehsil Cantt. District Lahore. Haji Muhammad Yousaf had three daughters namely Sakina Bibi, Zohra Bibi, and Sughran Bibi and two sons namely Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Younas. Haji Muhammad Yousaf had allegedly gifted all his property in the name of his two sons vide Rapat No,347 dated 3-10-1998. Haji Muhammad Yousaf died on 6-3-1999 and this fact was mentioned by the Halqa Patwari in Roznamcha Waqiati vide Rapat No,763 dated 16-3-1999. The inheritance mutation was entered and sanctioned by the Revenue Officer in the name of all the legal heirs of late Haji Muhammad Yousaf vide Mutation No,1930 on 30-10-1999. The three daughters of late Haji Muhammad Yousaf filed a complaint with regard to aforesaid Roznamcha Waqiati Rapat No,347 dated 3-10-1998 before the Director Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab, Lahore, who entrusted the same to respondent No,2 who had dropped the inquiry vide order dated 19-4-2000. The three daughters of late Haji Muhammad Yousaf filed another complaint through the Army Monitoring Cell against the petitioner. The application is duly thumb-marked by the three daughters of late Haji Muhammad Yousaf. The same was filed through the son of Mst. Sakina Bibi, Major Iftikhar. The Monitoring Cell forwarded the same to the Deputy Commissioner alongwith the forwarding letter of corps Headquarters on 23-5-2000. The Deputy Commissioner had already appointed the officer on Special Duty to probe into the matter on the complaint filed by the three daughters of late Haji Muhammad Yousaf before filing the application before the Army Monitoring Cell by the daughters of original owner.. The officer on special duty had given report against the petitioner as is evident from para.5 of the report dated 31-5-2000. The report was placed before the A.D.C.(G), General Headquarters who passed the order after perusing the inquiry report that the case be got registered under the relevant provisions of law against the Patwari and the beneficiaries on 3-6- 2000. The same was approved by the Deputy Commissioner Lahore vide order dated 6-6-2000.
The Deputy Commissioner forwarded the same for registration of a case to the Director Anti- Corruption Establishment Punjab, Lahore, on 13-6-2000. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that once the accused has been exonerated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment during the inquiry, no fresh complaint is entertainable and has relied upon Manzoor Hussain v. Executive Engineer, Distribution Division (East) Shaikhupura and others 1986 PLC (CS) 20 and Muhammad Aslam Qureshi v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab and others 1992 PLC (CS) 268. He further submits that the real sons of late Haji Muhammad Yousaf filed a suit qua the same subject-matter before the competent Court which is pending adjudication. The private respondents filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint filed by the brothers of the private respondents. Out of the pleadings of the parties alongwith other issues, the following issue is also framed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore on 11- 9-2001:-- ' Whether the proceedings of gift mutation in favor of plaintiffs are forged and fraudulent? OPP ' The learned counsel of the petitioner further submits that Anti-Corruption Authorities have no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter in the presence of the pendency of the civil suit qua the same subject-matter and relief. In support of his contention, he relied upon an unreported judgment passed in Writ Petition No,1658 of 2003. He further submits that respondents had taken action under the direction of the Monitoring Cell under the influence of Major Iftikhar, who is son of one of the respondents Sakina Bibi, therefore, the action taken against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that Halqa Patwari had entered the Rapat No,763 on 16-3-1999 qua the death of late Haji Muhammad Yousaf and also entered Mutation No,1930 qua the inheritance of the property of Haji Muhammad Yousaf in the name of all the legal heirs which was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on 30-10-1999. In case the Halqa Patwari had already entered Rapat No,347 on 3-10-1998 then he must have mentioned this fact at the time of entering inheritance mutation. This fact alone is sufficient that the Rapat No,347 was written subsequently. He further submits that Rapat No,347 itself reveals that same is fictitious one as is evident from Annexure-R/4. Initially the name of Haji Muhammad Yousaf was written which was deleted and thereafter Muhammad Yousaf was Written. He further submits that whole property of late Haji Muhammad Yousaf was allegedly gifted in the name of two sons excluding the shares of three daughters. He further submits that complaint of the petitioner had already been entrusted by the Deputy Commissioner to the Officer on Special Duty before filing an application by the petitioner before the Monitoring Cell as is evident from Exh.D.1 attached with the writ petition. He further submits that brothers of the private respondents filed an appeal against the mutation dated 30-10-1999 before the Collector City, Lahore D.D.O. (Revenue Collector), Lahore, who dismissed the same vide order dated 29-10-2001. Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Younas being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Executive District Officer Revenue, Lahore, who also dismissed the same vide order, dated 29-5-2002. He further submits that writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24-2-2003. The Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab, Lahore proceeded in the matter after securing a legal opinion as is evident from the letter dated 20-3- 2003 of Director Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab, Lahore. He further submits that petitioner has not challenged this order. He further submits that writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, ne relied upon the following judgments:-- ' Haji Muhammad Sadiq v. Ilaqa Magistrate and others 2001 PCr.LJ 571 and Dilawar Hussain v. S.H.O.
Police Station Dhanoot, District Lodhran 1999 MLD 881.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General, submits that preliminary inquiry was held which was dropped at initial stages and same was not dropped on merits, therefore, there is no bar to initiate proceedings against the accused under the provisions of Punjab Anti-Corruption Rules, 1985. He further submits that preliminary inquiry is not even mandatory for the registration of a case. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- ' Shafqat .Hussain v. Malik Sarfraz Inspector/Circle Officer Anti-Corruption Establishment Hafizabad and another 2000 PCr.LJ 1995, Mirza Muhammad lqbal v Government of Punjab PLD 1999 Lahore 109, M. Abdul Latif v. G.M. Paracha and others 1981 SCMR 1101 ' He summed up his arguments that this Court has never stopped the process of investigation or registration of a case in spite of pendency of any civil suit. There are certain cases in which challan has been submitted and this Court has stayed the proceedings in a very exceptional cases.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioner, in rebuttal, submits that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the influence of Monitoring Cell and the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner under the directions of the Army Personnel, therefore, all the impugned orders against the petitioner are mala fide.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
7. The question of law has already been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Muhammad Shafi's case PLD 1992 Lah.
178. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "The forger must have, before the suit, used the forged document on a number of occasions, in deceiving a number of persons. And when his fraud and forgery came to light and the real owner or the persons defrauded were preparing to take criminal proceedings, he hit upon the clever device of instituting a civil suit and producing the forged document in the civil suit. He would, then, on the view contended for by the petitioner, be able to say: 'Well, I have produced the document in the Civil Court; you have to wait till that Court has finally decided the genuineness or otherwise of the document, for unless that is done, that Court will not be in a position to say whether an offence of forgery was committed or not and to lodge a complaint under section 195. Unfortunately, civil suits usually take very long to decide and, in practical terms, it may amount to completely defeating the ends of justice. On this view, therefore, the Civil Courts will become a place for the protection of criminals. This obviously could not have been the intention of the law. The cause of action for proceeding against the forger arose immediately when the offence of forgery as defined in section 463 of the P.P.C. Was committed. The commission of that offence was not only intended to deprive the real owner of his property but had also enabled the forger to deceive others and to deprive them of money. No proceedings were pending in any Court at that time. There was, therefore, no question of the offence, at the date of its commission, being against the Court or the administration of justice; nor did it, then, in any way sully the proceedings of the Court, for none were pending."
' Our Constitution is based on trichotom as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others PLD 1993 SC 473 and The State v. Ziaur-Rehman and others PLD 1973 SC 49. This Court has only power to interpret the law and has no power to take the role of the investigating agency and the matter is still pending before the Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favor of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236, Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division and others 1998 SCMR 1462 In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is disposed of as such.