2011 PLP 1401 (YLR)
ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SATTO KATLA, LAHORE and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1401 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shahid Hameed Dar, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SATTO KATLA, LAHORE and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1401 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1401 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shahid Hameed Dar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1401 (YLR) (ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SATTO KATLA, LAHORE and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Bhatti for Petitioner.
- Aftab Rahim Butt and Shahid Hussain for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 420, 468 & 471
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Cheating, forgery, using as genuine a forged document
Quashing of F.I.R.
F.I.R. had alleged that accused and his co-accused forged the agreement to sell and for that purpose not only committed the offence of forgery, but also used the forged document as genuine
Mode of the occurrence detailed in the F.I.R., required investigation into the allegations, which was the exclusive domain of the Police
Proceedings of a civil suit and that of the criminal case could continue in parallel to each other under the law
Constitutional petition was dismissed. M.A. Amin Mian, Additional P.G. with Ghulam Murtaza, S.-I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.
Through this Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution, of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No. 171 of 2010, dated 11-2-2010, for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, registered at Police Station Satto Katla, District Lahore on the complaint of one Waris Ali.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are absolutely false and the petitioner and his co-accused have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner and his co-accused have not committed any forgery nor have defrauded Waris Ali complainant/respondent No. 3; that a civil litigation is pending between the parties prior to lodgment of the impugned F.I.R. regarding the alleged forged agreement to sell dated 10-1-2009; that in existence of civil suit, the complainant was barred under the law to get the impugned F.I.R. lodged as enunciated under section 476, Cr.P.C. that under the garb of the impugned F.I.R. the petitioner and his co-accused are being harassed and blackmailed by the complainant-respondent No. 3.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General on the other hand, has controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. relate to a factual controversy which cannot be resolved by way of the instant Constitutional petition; that multifarious allegations have been made in the F.I.R. by the complainant and it is the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer to look into the veracity of the allegations by conducting investigation into it and quashment of F.I.R. at this stage would amount to choking and interfering with the investigation of this case which the law does not permit.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused/petitioner and his co-accused forged the agreement to sell and for this purpose not only committed the offence of forgery but also used the forged documents as genuine. The mode of the occurrence as detailed in the F.I.R. requires investigation into the allegations, which is the exclusive domain of the police. The proceedings of a civil suit and that of the criminal cases can continue in parallel to each other under the law.
6. For the foregoing reasons I find no substance in this petition, which stands dismissed. H.B.T./A-271/L Petition dismissed.