2007 P Cr (PLP)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Mian Zahoor Elahi son of Mian Ghulam Sarwar, the petitioner, by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.7825/B of 2006, Yasir Zahoor and Rashid Zahoor, the petitioners, by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.8923/B of 2006 seek pre-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No.290, dated 22-4-2006, registered with Police Station Naulakha, Lahore, for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. Yasir Zahoor (petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No.7825/B of 2006) is not in attendance as he is indisposed. His medical certificate has been produced. His attendance is hereby dispensed with. I propose to decide both these bail applications by means of this consolidated order.

2. The prosecution case as contained in the application submitted by Abdul Shakoor son of Ali Ahmad (complainant) to Federal Interior Minister, on the basis of which the F.I.R. had been chalked out was that he was resident of 104-McLeod Road, Lahore and carried out his business in the name and style of Pioneer Pipe Industrial Services; Mian Zahoor Elahi (petitioner) was desirous of selling his factory by the name of Zeshan Engineering Works, situate at Burhan, G.T. Road, District Attock; while expressing his desire to buy the factory, he (complainant) inspected the same and contacted Mian Zahoor Elahi (petitioner), who (Mian Zahoor Elahi) met with him on 30-9-2001 in his office at McLeod Road, Lahore; they had a detailed discourse; Mian Zahoor Elahi informed him that the factory was in the former's name and asked him to make up his mind; about fifteen days thereafter, Mian Zahoor Elahi and his two sons, namely, Yasir Zahoor and Rashid Zahoor (petitioners) came to his office at 104-McLeod Road, Lahore, where a deal was struck for the factory at Rs.1,21,00,000, Mian Zahoor Elahi (petitioner) gave him the account number of his son's Citibank account at Islamabad; he kept on sending money in the said account periodically; thus, he paid an amount of Rs.47,82,000 in the shape of deposit in the Bank account as well as cash; thereafter, Mian Zahoor Elahi (petitioner) and his sons got his signatures on an agreement reduced on a stamp paper, duly attested by witnesses; there was some old machinery lying in the factory for which Mian Zahoor Elahi allowed him to depute two persons, so that the same could be sold; under that arrangement scrapped machinery was sold for Rs.18,00,000, whereafter he told Mian Zahoor Elahi that he wanted to come to him with the balance amount and asked for an appointment; Mian Zahoor Elahi in the first instance ousted the two persons, who had been sent for selling machinery and told him (petitioner) not to come till such time that he was asked to do so; thereafter, Mian Zahoor Elahi did not respond prompting the complainant to go to the factory, where he saw that some other people had taken possession thereof, who told him that Mian Zahoor Elahi owed them money and in lieu thereof had given them possession of the factory; thereafter, he could not contact Mian Zahoor Elahi, but had talked to him on telephone; Mian Zahoor Elahi told him plainly that he did not owe anything to him; on his insistence; he (Mian Zahoor Elahi) issued threats of murder and warned him not to come there again. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.

3. After having failed to get the relief sought for from the learned Court of Session, the petitioners have approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail through these petitions.

4. Mr. Muhammad Ghani, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Interior Ministry had disowned the letter on the basis of which F.I.R. had been recorded; that a civil suit had been filed on 22-7-2006 by Mian Zahoor Elahi (petitioner) for cancellation of the agreement, dated 25-9-2006, which is still pending in the Civil Court; that prior to this a civil suit had been filed by the petitioners against harassment, which was being caused to them by the complainant party; that no offence under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. is made out; that the dispute being of civil nature, no criminal case could be registered. In support or his submissions, he relied on Ikramuddin and 4 others v. The State and another 1984 PCr.LJ 2736; Abdul Karim v. Urnar Hayat and others 1986 PCr.LJ 97; Azizullah and another v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 135 and Muhammad Ameen v. Master Bashir Ahmad and others 2006 SCMR

969. He also argued that since property was located in Attock, no case could be registered at Lahore.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned State counsel vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. It was argued that the petitioners wield a lot of political clout and that it was due to this influence that they have been able to get investigation transferred from one Investigating Officer to the other in violation of the mandatory requirements of Police Order, 2002. They added that the complainant is resolutely clinging on to the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the claim of the petitioners that the Interior Ministry had disowned the letter is of no consequence inasmuch as no permission or authorization from the Ministry of Interior is required to get a case registered where a cognizable offence is clearly made out. It was argued that serious cognizable offences had been committed by the petitioners, so they were not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Muhammad Arif, S.-I.

7. I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the complainant that A nothing turns on the so-called disclaimer of Ministry of Interior qua the letter on the basis of which the F.I.R. had been recorded. Permission from a particular Ministry or Government Official is not a sine qua non for registration of F.I.R. A bare perusal of the F.I.R., if taken at its face value, discloses commission o cognizable offences and for this reason alone no fault can be found with registration of F.I.R. The record reveals that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted investigation in the case had 'field the petitioners to be guilty. Thereafter, as per the record the Law Minister of the Provincial Government had intervened on behalf of the petitioners and had asked the Investigating D.S.P. to harmonize his investigation; Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Investigation), Lahore in his letter addressed to the Investigating D.S.P. had pointed out what he termed as "various anomalies" in the investigation and from the tenor of his memo. No.5776/R-D.I.G.-Inv., dated 11-11-2006 it appears that he was bent upon getting the petitioners to be declared innocent and had directed the D.S.P. to conduct investigation in a manner leaving no option for him (D.S.P.) but to declare the petitioners innocent. It is surprising that in his aforesaid memo., Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Investigation) had extensively referred to the intervention of the Provincial Law Ministry but did not write even a single word showing even his token disapproval of the intervention made by the Provincial Law Minister, who was a total stranger. If one reads between the lines, the aforementioned communication of the D.I.-G. for all intents and purposes, was a direction to the Investigating D.S.P. to hold the petitioners innocent. Such a move on the part of a senior officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector-General of Police cannot be appreciated. It is on record that civil suit filed by the petitioners for cancellation of agreement to sell was filed on 22-7-2006 i.e. exactly three months after the registration of the case. Even otherwise, filing of a civil suit cannot bar criminal prosecution where serious offences under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. are prima facie spelt out in the F.I.R. Reference can profitably be made to a recent pronouncement of the Honourable apex Court in the case of Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others 2006 SCMR 1192. Receipt of Rs.29,00,000 is admitted by the petitioners. The mere fact that the property is situated at Attock will also not be relevant inasmuch as the agreement had admittedly been executed and entered into at Lahore. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any special feature of the case entitling the petitioners to the grant of extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. The prerequisites for such concession i.e. malice either on the part of the complainant or the police, are conspicuously missing in the case. On the contrary as already stated elsewhere, the police appear to have been siding with the petitioners. The precedents cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners proceed on different facts and do not advance his case for the grant of pre-arrest bail.

8. Resultantly, there being no merit in these petitions, the same are dismissed and the interim anticipatory bail allowed to' the petitioners is hereby recalled. H.B.T./Z-47/L Bail refused.