YLR 2008

2008 PLP 1073 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD SADDIQ and another — Petitioners Versus CAPITAL CI'T'Y POLICE OFFICER, LAHORE and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 9689 of 2007, decided on 21st November, 2007.
Honorable Judges
Tariq Shamim, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 1073 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Tariq Shamim, J
Parties MUHAMMAD SADDIQ and another — Petitioners Versus CAPITAL CI'T'Y POLICE OFFICER, LAHORE and others — Respondents
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1073 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1073 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tariq Shamim, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1073 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SADDIQ and another — Petitioners Versus CAPITAL CI'T'Y POLICE OFFICER, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Shahid Zaheer Syed for Petitioners.
  • Pir S.A. Rasheed for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 21st November, 2007.
  • 2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General as well as the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 has contended that forgery was committed by the petitioner much prior to the filing of the civil suit and, therefore, the provisions of sections .195 and 476, Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of the case; that the concerned Tehsildar conducted an inquiry in which he found that the petitioners did not own any land in the area and Jamabandi in question was false and fabricated; that the matter entails factual controversy which could not be agitated through a writ petition; that the suit in which the petitioners had obtained stay order from the learned Civil Court on the basis of the documents in question had been dismissed and that the petitioners despite a specific direction given by this Court have failed to join the investigation.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 420, 467, 4681 & 471

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition

Quashing of F.I.R.

Serious allegations had been levelled against petitioners of preparing Ford Malkiat of property in respect of which they had no proprietary rights

Ford Jamabandi did not even relate to Khasra number concerned, but pertained to another land in the area

Tehsildar conducted inquiry and his inquiry report had revealed that petitioners did not own any land in the area and that Fard Jamambandi had been forged and fabricated by the petitioners

Applicability of Ss. 476 & 195, Cr. P. C. in given facts and circumstances of the case, was doubtful

Mere pendency of civil suit between the parties, could not be made a basis for stalling the process emanating from F.I.R. as civil as well as criminal proceedings could continue side by side

Matter essentially pertained to disputed questions of fact as allegations levelled by the complainant had been denied by the petitioner

Same could neither be agitated before the High Court nor could be resolved in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

Petition being without any merit was dismissed. Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others 2006 SCMR 512; M. Aslam Zaheer v. Shah Muhammad 2000 SCMR 1619 and Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276 ref. Amjad Ali Chathha, A.A.-G with Nasim Sarwar S. -I.

Judgment & Decree

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

The petitioners seek quashing of case F.I.R.. No. 899 of 2007, dated 26-8-2007 for offence under sections 420, 467, .168 and 471, P.P.C.; registered at Police Station Islampura, Lahore, inter alia on the grounds that the petitioners are owners of the land in question, therefore, there was no necessity for the petitioners to have prepared a bogus document; that the matter is pending before the Civil Court which is fully competent to decide the dispute between the parties; that the F.I.R. had not been competently lodged as Jamabandi in question had been appended with the civil suit filed by the petitioners and in such a situation it is only the Civil Court which is competent to direct registration of a criminal case and that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are totally false and fabricated.

2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General as well as the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 has contended that forgery was committed by the petitioner much prior to the filing of the civil suit and, therefore, the provisions of sections .195 and 476, Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of the case; that the concerned Tehsildar conducted an inquiry in which he found that the petitioners did not own any land in the area and Jamabandi in question was false and fabricated; that the matter entails factual controversy which could not be agitated through a writ petition; that the suit in which the petitioners had obtained stay order from the learned Civil Court on the basis of the documents in question had been dismissed and that the petitioners despite a specific direction given by this Court have failed to join the investigation.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record.

4. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners of preparing Fard Malkiat of property in respect of which they had no proprietary rights. The Fard Jamabandi does not even relate to Khasra No.2030 but in fact, pertains to another land in the area. On inquiry conducted by the Tehsildar, a report was submitted by the Halqa Patwari which was concurred with by the Tehsildar in which it was revealed that the petitioners did not own any land in the area and that Fard Jamabandi had been forged and fabricated by the petitioners. The argument of the learned counsel that since Fard Jamabandi had been appended with the civil suit filed by the petitioner and, therefore, it was only the Civil Court which could order registration of a criminal case is totally unfounded as, according to the record, the Fard Jamabandi was prepared much before the civil suit was filed. I agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the given facts and circumstances of the case the applicability of sections 476 and 195, Cr.P.C. is doubtful. Further, mere pendency of civil suit between the parties cannot be made a basis for stalling the process emanating from the F.I.R. as civil as well as criminal proceedings can continue side by side as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others (2006 SCMR 512) and M. Aslam Zaheer v. Shah Muhammad (2000 SCMR 1619). The matter essentially pertains to disputed questions of fact as the allegations levelled by the complainant have been denied by the petitioners. Therefore, the same can neither be agitated before this Court nor can the same be resolved in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The police officer present in the Court with record has categorically stated that the petitioners have not joined the investigation. It may be pointed out that the petitioners had been specifically directed by this Court to join the investigation which is apparent from the order, dated 13-11-2007, thus they have willfully failed to comply with the order and on account of their conduct nor relief can be granted in equity. Since the investigation has not been finalized, therefore, quashing of the F.I.R. at this stage would amount to stifling the prosecution in its infancy. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v: Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCMR 276) has deprecated the quashing of F.I.R. and has held that quashing of F.I.R. would amount to short circuiting the normal procedure of law as provided under Criminal Procedure Code and Police Rules.

5. For what has been stated above, this petition being without any merit is dismissed. H. B. T. /M-30/L Petition dismissed.