2013 PLP 988 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J.

This petition for leave to appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 15-2-2011 passed by Rai Liaqat Ali Kharal, learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Islamabad whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge for the offences under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. for want of evidence.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents Nos.1 to 5 in connivance with each other had prepared a forged and fake sale agreement of the petitioner's House No.477 Street No.107 Sector I-8/4, Islamabad wherein it was claimed by the respondent No. 2 (Pervaiz Aftab Khan son of Jalil Kamran) that he had paid Rs.50 millions as sale consideration and on the basis of this fictitious agreement dated 24-7-2008 a civil suit was filed to snatch the possession of petitioner's house from her tenant, who informed her, whereupon she came to Pakistan and lodged F.I.R. No.226 under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C. on 13-7-2009 at Police Station Industrial Area, Islamabad.

3. It is next submitted that the police had not been conducting the investigation properly and had accepted the version of respondent No.2 that he had lost the original sale agreement at Lahore during travel on motorcycle, which is said to be reported at Police Station Industrial Area, Islamabad.

4. It is further contended that in consequence thereof, police deleted sections 468, 471 P.P.C. by observing that original sale agreement is not available and, therefore, submitted challan for an offence under section 420 P.P.C. only against the respondent No.2.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that due to improper, partial investigation a private complaint for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. against the respondents was filed and after taking the cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, trial started, wherein the complainant's evidence was recorded but without formulating the points for determination the respondents were acquitted on an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the production of original sale agreement was the responsibility of the respondent No.2, whose version respecting the loss of agreement at Lahore, was accepted without any justification in spite of the fact that no such report of loss of the document was lodged at Lahore.

7. It is further contended that the alleged sale agreement does not contain signatures of the petitioner, and police should have sent the photo copy to the Handwriting Expert for verification of the signatures of the complainant/petitioner. It is finally submitted that non-registration of such a valuable document itself is a proof of it being a forged document.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the acquittal order by stating that no specific role has been assigned to respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 had paid the amount against a property executed receipt but the original agreement was lost and the complainant failed to establish charges of forgery against the respondents.

9. It is further contended that a civil suit is pending before the Civil Court between the parties and the petitioner after sale of house has no concern with it.

10. Heard and record perused.

11. The learned trial Court while discussing the evidence of the complainant, observed that the original sale agreement is not on record and the civil suit is also pending in the Court and veracity of original agreement is to be proved after recording evidence.

12. It was further observed that the offences under sections 468, 471, P.P.C. were deleted by the I.O. as there was no evidence for preparing forged and fictitious document.

13. As far as the genuineness of the sale agreement and receipt of payment are concerned, the police should have investigated into the matter, it was not done and, therefore, at this stage, when the civil suit is already pending, no findings can be given, which may cause prejudice to the case of either party.

14. The order passed by the learned trial Court is regarding the acquittal of the respondents and shall be having no bearing on the merits of the civil suit, because the issues would be decided on the basis of evidence produced before the Civil Court which has got its own procedure of proving/disproving the documents.

15. In view of the above, the order dated 15-2-2011 does not warrant any interference. This petition for special leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

16. Leave to appeal refused. MH/11/Isl Petition dismissed.