Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR bearing No,17/2000 registered under sections 420, 468, 409, 109 P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station A.C.E., Okara registered on the application of Tayyab Hussain Shah contractor of tax on immovable property by Municipal Committee I laveli Lakha, Tehsil Dipalpur, District Okara.
2. According to the complainant one Habib ur Rehman Khan son of Yameen Khan had actually sold a commercial shop situated at Pakpattan Road, in favour of Irshad Ahmad petitioner for consideration of Rs,3,00,000 and that said Habib Ullah Khan in connivance with the petitioner and the Halqa Patwari showed the shop to be situated in Yameen Town instead of its actual location and got issued a fake Fard. According to the F.I.R. This was done with a view to depriving the Government of its revenues in respect of Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Transfer Fee, etc. Further that instead of getting the sale-deed executed and registered, a gift deed was executed and got registered on 9-10-1996 showing said shop as an open plot valuing Rs,5000. The complainant further alleged that there was a shop at the site and according to the Board of Revenue gift could only be executed in favour of a legal heir whereas in the present case there was no relationship between the donor and the donee and they did not even belong to the same caste. The complainant further stated that Irshad Ahmad the alleged donee's father Muhammad Yar is a Patwari by profession and he in active connivance of Muhammad Tariq Halqa Patwari maneuvered the whole transactions caused considerable loss to the Government exchequer and Municipal Committee Haveli Lakha amounting to Rs,57,000 the break-up of which is evasion of stamp duty, Rs,25,500 Tax Rs,15,000, and Movable Property Tax Rs,16,500.
3. After registration of the F.I.R while the investigation was in progress the petitioner filed the instant writ petition which was admitted to regular hearing, on 10-1-2001 and an injunctive order was also passed on the said date by this Court restraining the respondents from taking any adverse action against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned F.I.R bearing No,17 dated 30-6-2000. The said writ petition has come up for hearing after almost 2-3/4 years.
4. Mirza Muhammad Aziz ur Rehman, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for quashing the F.I.R submits that the gift made in favour of the petitioner was genuine which was formally got registered vide gift deed No,2019 dated 9-10-1996; that the gift deed was registered in accordance with rate/yardstick and the evaluation of the property tax as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner in the year 1995-96 that the stamp duty was paid according to the said evaluation; that respondent No,4 Tayyab Husain Shah contractor had some personal grudge against the petitioner which prompted him to file an application alleging that instead of a regular sale-deed, a Hibanama was executed and got registered; that the application of the contractor did not find favour with the then Deputy Commissioner who observed that no person can be restrained to gift away his property if stamp duty had been paid in accordance with the prescribed yardstick; that even the parties did not observe the valuation-table issued by the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner even then the Registrar was bound to register the documents on the payment of ad valorem stamp duty mentioned in the document presented for registration. In order to reinforce his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Muhammad Riaz Akhtar v. Sub-Registrar and 7 others PLD 1996 Lahore 180 and Muhammad Aslam v. Sub-Registrar and others 1995 CLC 674. Finally he submitted that no offence having been committed by the petitioner, the F.I.R. Merited to be quashed.
5. On the other hand Rana Muhammad Saleem, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent No,4 has forcefully opposed the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. He submitted that the whole transaction is fake in that there is no plot at the site as claimed by the petitioner whereas there is a shop which is being used for regular commercial purposes; that a sign board in the name of Irshad Trader is displayed at the said shop that in connivance with the Patwari a fake FARD showing the shop to be situated in Yameen Town has been obtained whereas actually the shop falls within the area of Municipal Committee Haveli Lakha; that a gift deed has been maneuvered and there is no reason for the donor to have made any gift in favour of the donee who has neither got any relationship inter se nor he belonged to the same caste; that there was no occasion for the Patwari to have issued a FARD of agricultural land measuring one Marla; that the moving force behind this dubious transaction is Muhammad Yar Patwari who happens to be the father of the petitioner and Halqa Patwari Muhammad Tariq who has issued the FARD happens to be his pupil; that considerable loss has been occasioned to the Government exchequer through the machinations of the petitioner and the Revenue Staff.
6. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advancedby the learned counsel for the parties.
7. I would not like to make a detailed comment on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties, however, I have noticed that the manner in which the transaction is stated to have taken place raises a lot of doubts. Prima facie an attempt appears to have been made to evade the Government Revenues by executing and getting registered a gift deed. In my opinion the matter needed a thorough investigation and the defence offered by the petitioner did not present any special feature which could warrant quashing of the F.I.R. Which is an extreme step and is resorted to only in very rare cases. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not advance his case for quashing the proceeding. In case titled, Muhammad Riaz Akhtarv. Sub-Registrar and 7 others PLD 1996 Lahore 180, it was held by this Court that the Sub- Registrar was not justified in refusing to register a document of immovable property without payment of tax to Local Council/Municipal Corporation. It was also held therein that directive of the Board of Revenue to Sub-Registrars requiring them to register a document of immovable property only if receipt of all taxes were attached with the said documents was beyond its authority. Likewise in case titled, Muhammad Aslam v. Sub-Registrar and others 1995 CLC 674, this Court held that a valuation table issued under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 which was not notified, would be of no legal effect and parties would not be liable to pay stamp duty according to such valuation table and rates fixed in it. This was obviously not the situation in the instant case. At any rate in its Constitutional jurisdiction this Court does not extend the protection of law to a person to retain a gain, privilege or benefit which prima facie appears to have been acquired by manipulation etc. Reference can profitably be made in this regard to the case titled, Abdul Haq and others v. Province of Sindh and others PLD 2000 Kar.
224.
In view of what has been discussed above, I see no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.