1986 PLP 1190 (MLD)

Ch. Abdul Rashid Gujjar for Petitioners. Irshad Ahmad for the State. This is an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for the quashment of proceedings under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. against Lal, Shashu and Sahba, petitioners pending adjudictl#un before Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are that on 27‑9‑1983, a case under section 419/420/467/468/471/148/149, P.P.C. was registered against Sahba and others at P.S. Bhagtanwala, District Sargodha. The allegations were that the petitioners and others, got Mutation No.230 in favour of Lal and Shashu petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, fraudulently sanctioned. After investigations, the challan was submitted against the petitioners and others before the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha and the same is pending decision there.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land on the strength of Mutation N0.230; that a detailed inquiry was held by the Deputy Commissioner Collector, with regard to the genuineness of this mutation and the D.C./Collector found that the mutation was very much valid; that the Member Board of Revenue has also found that the mutation in favour of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 was correct and that the writ petition filed against the order of the Collector has been dismissed on 24‑11‑1985. The learned counsel vehemently maintained that in the aforesaid g aid circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioners before Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.

4. I have considered .the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the petitioners have not moved any application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. before the trial Court and that the petitioners have moved this application before this Court on the basis of documents which are not the part o the file of the trial Court and that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, I do not desire to pre‑empt the duties and functions of the trial Court.

5. For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed. The petitioners may approach the trial Court and move application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. if so advised. This order is without prejudice to the order, which may be passed by the trial Court on the application of the petitioners under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. H.A.K. Quashment of proceedings refused.