2007 P Cr (PLP)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this petition the petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No.87 dated 12-3-2004 under sections 420, 468, 471, 406, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sialkot, inter alia, on the ground that a civil suit was filed by the petitioner as a counterblast to which the present F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner; that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are false and fabricated and that no offence has been committed by the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. as no document was forged or fabricated by the petitioner.

2. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, the complainant while opposing the petition contends that the petitioner has changed the dates in the agreements to sell as otherwise the suit filed by the petitioner would have become time-barred; that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R.; that during investigation also the petitioner was found to be fully involved in the crime alleged against him; that the scribe of the document interpolated by the petitioner appeared before -the police and also got his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate wherein he categorically stated that the agreement in question was executed in 1996 and not in 1998 and that the investigation having been completed the challan was likely to be submitted in the trial Court in the near future.

3. The learned Additional Advocate-General has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. ?

4. The writ petition was admitted to regular hearing by this Court vide order, dated 25-3-2004 and an injunctive order was passed in favour of the petitioner to the effect that he would not be arrested in the meanwhile. A perusal of the order-sheet reveals that since the passing of the said order, the petitioner and his learned counsel have consistently been absent from the Court, as a consequence whereof the petition was dismissed .for non-prosecution on 4-10-2006. However, the same was restored on an application filed by the petitioner in the interest of justice. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner after the grant of interim relief by this Court has misused the same by deliberately failing to enter appearance on a number of occasions.

5. Even otherwise serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner of committing fraud with the complainant which is evident from the fact that the copies of Iqrarnama produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 show that the date shown in the document in question i.e. 18-1-1996 had been fraudulently changed by the petitioner to 18-6-1998 out of malice and for ulterior motives. The scribe of the said document appeared before the police as well as the learned Magistrate and got his statement recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. in which he categorically stated that the petitioner, in order to commit fraud with the complainant, had changed the date of the execution of document from 18-6-1996 to 18-6-1998. The statement of the scribe recorded by the learned Magistrate prima facie connects the petitioner with the commission of crime alleged against him by the complainant. During the investigation also the petitioner was c found to be fully involved in the commission of offence of forgery etc. Thus, on merits also the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for quashment of the F.I.R. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil suit was pending between the parties regarding the subject-matter of the F.I.R. and that criminal proceedings had been lodged as a counterblast to the same meriting quashment of F.I.R. is devoid of any force as it has been consistently held by the Honourable Supreme Court that criminal as well as civil proceedings can continue side by side as the both relate to different laws. Reliance is placed on the cases of Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others 2006 SCMR 2512 and M. Aslam Zaheer v. Ch. Shah Muhammad 2003 SCMR 1691.

6. The allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. and denial of the same by the petitioner necessarily requires holding of an inquiry into disputed questions of fact. Such exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. The police is under a legal obligation to investigate a crime reported to it and interfering in the statutory duty of the police would amount to stifling the prosecution. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276 had held that quashment of F.I.R. would amount to short circuiting the normal procedure of law as provided under Cr.P.C. and Police Rules and that the accused has more than one alternate remedies available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. No occasion has, thus, been found for interference in the matter by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./5-199/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.