2009 PLP 2062 (YLR)

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed this Intra Court Appeal against order dated 9-10-2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13221 of 2008. In the said order, the learned Single Judge did not agree with learned counsel for the appellant that an F.I.K. should be registered against the respondent instead the learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore/Ex Officio Justice of Peace, which reads as under:-- "Keeping in view the contents of the petition as well as comments, prima facie the matter between the parties is one of civil nature, hence in this situation, there is no justification to pass any order for registration of a criminal case. The instant petition is hereby dismissed."

2. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that even if the civil or criminal proceedings have been initiated between the parties, that cannot be a bar for registration of criminal case, if it is made out. The learned Single Judge has observed as under: There is no cavil to say, as also asserted by the petitioner's counsel, that there is no bar of initiation of criminal proceedings even if civil litigation between the parties is pending and more so in a case where the civil suit is filed after the alleged fabrication of the kind of document referred to in this case."

3. Therefore, the observation on this point has already been set aside by the learned Single Judge, which we also approve of. However, further agreeing with the learned Single Judge that in the facts and circumstances of the case, filing a private complaint before a competent Court is an adequate remedy as has been held in judgment passed by a Full Bench of this Court reported as PLD 2005 Lah.

470. At this point, learned counsel for the appellant has agreed not to press this appeal, to this extent, therefore this appeal is dismissed in view of the observations made above.

4. However, if the appellant, chose to file a private complaint, the learned trial Court would decide the same after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, expeditiously, and strictly in accordance with law. It may also be pointed out that the above mentioned judgment of the learned Full Bench has already lucidly elaborated that inquiry/investigation under section 202, Cr.P.C. needs to be read with section 4 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, it empowers the learned trial Court to hold or order investigation which also includes recovery. In this context, if any application is filed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same would also be entertained and decided in accordance with law.

5. With the above observations, this appeal stands disposed of. H.B.T./A-234/L Appeal dismissed.