MUHAMMAD TARIQ and others vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Tariq and others in a criminal case registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to a disputed agreement to sell. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting anticipatory bail when the foundational document of the criminal charge is simultaneously the subject-matter of a pending civil suit for specific performance. The Lahore High Court held that the civil court is the competent forum to determine the genuineness and validity of the agreement, noting that criminal proceedings could result in conflicting outcomes if the civil court ultimately decrees specific performance, thereby rendering criminal prosecution a futile exercise. The court emphasized that the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the existence of a prior civil suit, and substantial payments made via online banking entitled the petitioners to confirmation of bail. The court laid down the principle that parallel criminal proceedings regarding the fabrication of a document should generally await determination by the civil court where the genuineness of that document is already sub judice.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when the disputed document forming the basis of the criminal charge is already sub judice before a civil court in a suit for specific performance?
- Does the registration of a criminal case regarding a forged document during the pendency of a civil suit concerning the same document constitute grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Can parallel criminal proceedings continue when a civil court is actively determining the genuineness and validity of an agreement to sell?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---Muhammad Tariq, Noor Ahmad and Allah Ditta petitioners pray for grant of anticipatory bail in a case. F.I.R. No, 31 dated 20-1-2012 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. With Police Station, Pir Mehal District Toba Tek Singh for forging an agreement to sell.
2. Heard.
3. It is noticed that the occurrence had taken place on 22-11-2010 but the F.I.R. Has been lodged with the delay of two years i,e, on 20-1-2012. The petitioners on the basis of agreement to sell had instituted a suit for specific performance of argument on 22-2-2011 against the complainant party.
After having knowledge of institution of civil suit on the basis of same agreement to sell, the complainant did not approach the court for setting into motion the criminal machinery against the petitioners. According to the contents of the agreement Rs, one crore was paid by petitioners to the complainant for the purchase of the land in dispute and some of the money was transferred into the account of the complainant through on line banking. Enforcement to hat agreement is subject- matter of the civil suit where the court shall determine its genuineness and validity. Anomaly can be created in case the court convicts the petitioners for an offence charged in the F.I.R. And sentenced them, holding that the agreement to sell was forged document, whereas the other side picture could be that a civil court may grant a decree of specific performance of that agreement to sell in favour of the petitioners holding the same as valid and enforceable document. In this situation whole of the criminal proceedings would prove as futile exercise and wastage of precious public time. Needless to say that the civil court is competent forum for the determination of the genuineness of the document which also enjoys a power to set aside the same if that document is not proved in accordance with law: Further the court also enjoys the jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings against the person found involved in the fabrication of that document adjudged to be a fabricated one. According to the record, the petitioners had made payment of huge amount to the complainant party and it appears that the complainant in order to usurp the amount had lodged the instant case against the petitioners. In this scenario the detention of the petitioners in jail would not serve ends of justice, rather would cause harassment and humiliation to the petitioners.
4. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 13-2-2012 is confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, One million each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.