2002 PLP 1574 (MLD)

Muhammad Qasim Khan, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents. The petitioner seeks quashing of F.I.R. No.43 of 2001, dated 12‑5‑2001 under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 472 and 474, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal.

2. Respondent No.4 Muhammad Aslam moved an application to respondent No.3 (learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahiwal) for passing an order for registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and others. It has been alleged in the application that the petitioner and co‑accused Latif Ahmad showing him a copy of 'Fard' prepared by Farooq Ahmad, accused being a Revenue Patwari pursued that they were owners of land measuring 2 Marlas, 5‑1/2 Sarsahi. Taking this document of revenue to be correct and genuine he got entered into a contract of sale for the same for a consideration of Rs.3,50,

000. This contract was registered before Sub‑Registrar, Sahiwal on 9‑5‑2000. Later on its came to his knowledge that said accused‑Patwari at the behest of petitioner and other accused Latif Ahmad prepared a fictitious and forged copy of Fard (showing their area as 2 Marlas. 5‑1/3 Sarsahis whereas actually they were owners of 1 Maria, 4‑1/3 Sarsahis). Upon the receipt of this application learned Magistrate (respondent No.3), directed respondent No.2 (S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal) to register the case according to relevant provisions of law and send the F.I.R. to his Court. Pursuant to this order, aforesaid impugned F.I. R. was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the case against the petitioner and another accused could not have been registered except under the orders of the officers mentioned in rule 8 of the Punjab Anti -Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985. This being the legal position, direction of the learned Magistrate and the registration of the impugned F.I.R. pursuant thereto could not be lawfully maintained. Reliance has been placed on "1992 MLD 311" (Muhammad Afzal and 2 others v. Muhammad Siddique Girwah, ASJ and 3 others), 2000 PCr.LJ 1924", (Muhammad lqbal, A.S.‑I. v. S.H.O., Police Station New Anarkali, Lahore and 2 others) and "PLJ 1996 Criminal Cases (Lah.) 916" (Saleem Hussain v. The State).

4. Though the learned Law Officer could not controvert the legal position emerging out of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, yet he contends that the matter has now been referred to the Anti‑Corruption Department sent for its further process.

5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner supported by the case‑law noticed above and uncontroverted by the learned Law Officer, persuade me to hold that the impugned F.I.R. cannot be technically maintained and the same is liable to be cancelled, therefore, the competent authority would pass a formal order of its cancellation in accordance with law.

6. Before parting with this order, it is also observed that the competent Authority now Anti‑Corruption Establishment would remain at liberty to process the complaint of the complainant (respondent No.4) on i its own merits and strictly in accordance with law, without having been influenced by the registration of the aforesaid criminal case and the proceedings taken thereunder.

7. Instant petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./T-88/L Petition accepted.