2011 PLP 790 (MLD)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

It is an old matter pertaining to the year 2005 which requires disposal under the Judicial Policy.

2. By this single order, I intend to dispose of both connected Writ Petitions Nos.1526 and 1473 of 2005 as common question of law and facts are involved in these matters.

3. Through these writ petitions the petitioners seek quashment of F.I.R. No.211 dated 15-5-2005 under section 420, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Sadiq Abad on the.. following grounds: (i) That one side the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and his companions usurp. 200 kanals land situated in Rawalpindi Cantt. area worth two billion of rupees and after looting left the petitioner No.1 on road for begging. The petitioners are owners of properties worth two billion, of rupees are at present penniless and without any hone. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are so cruel that now they have involved the petitioner No.1 in more than twenty Civil/ Revenue cases which are being adjudicated by the Civil and Revenue Courts. Now registration of instant criminal case is with mala fide intention to create illegal pressure to usurp properties worth two billion of rupees. (ii) That the impugned affidavit was produced by petitioners No. l in the court of Mr. Amjad Iqbal Ranjha, learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Rawalpindi in Civil Suit titled as Ghulam Hussain Shaukat and others v. Baqar Hussain Shah etc., not for the claim of any money but only to show that petitioner No.1 and his companion paid nothing. Respondent No.1 wants to go into the illegality of the said affidavit he has to file petition under sections 476, 195, Cr.P.C. in the court where the same was submitted. The trial Court vested jurisdiction to decide the said application after hearing both parties, which was not done in the subject matter. (iii) The respondents Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with respondents Nos.4 and 5 adopted illegal and short cut way. Declaring stamp paper dated 28-9-2003 as forged is result of fanciful, colourable exercise. In 1994 (Revenue) 103 it is held that public functionary vested with powers of determination of rights of citizen qua State resources should exercise the powers fairly properly, on sound judicial principles and relevant consideration having logical, nexus with object of law. He should not exercise the power arbitrarily and whimsically."

4. Conversely, learned counsel fop the complainant has vehemently opposed this writ petition and has contended that to decide, the fate of the dates of filing of suit and the date bearing on the documents tendered in the court are important. The suit in this case was filed in the year 2003 while the challenged stamp paper No.1310 bears date of 28-9-2002. Comparison of these dates brings the case out of purview of above mentioned provisions of law. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on 2004 YLR 830, 2007 PCr.L3 864 and 2007 MLD 763 and has contended that the documents were, in existence prior to, the filing of the suit, therefore, the contentions raised in the writ petition is not applicable in the matter in hand.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The perusal of record reveals that the alleged challenged stamp paper was issued on 28-9-2002 while the suit was filed in the year 2003 which means that the 'alleged' stamp 'paper' was issued prior to the institution of the suit'. So provisions of sections 195, 155, and 156, Cr.P.C. are not applicable in the instant matter. 6A. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners embodied in the writ petition is that since civil suit is pending so criminal proceedings are not proceedable is misconceived because civil as well as criminal proceedings can proceed at the, same time and the civil court which was trying the civil suit is competent to lodge.

7. Further the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that entire investigation so far conducted in the case was liable to be quashed as the Investigation Officer was not competent to investigate a case which requires prior permission of Magistrate is further not warranted because when case is registered under both cognizable or non-cognizable offences, provisions of section 155(2), Cr.P.C. was not attracted and matter could be investigated even without permission of a Magistrate.

8. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants duly supported with law remain unrebutted. Resultantly, these writ petitions are dismissed and the Investigating Officer is directed to investigate the matter and submit report under section 173, Cr.P.C. before the Allaqa Magistrate within prescribed period. N.H.Q./M-505/L Petitions dismissed.