MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus State

ORDER

Through this Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has sought for the quashment of F.I.R. No.129 of 2003, dated 22-3-2003registered under sections 420/468/471/109, P.P.C. At Police Station City Mian Channu.

2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, giving rise to this Constitutional petition are that on the application of respondent No.3 the aforesaid F.I.R. Has been lodged against the petitioner wherein he has stated that his wife Mst. Asghari Begum is owner of agricultural land in Chak No.108/15-L. Before the registration of the aforesaid case there was a litigation between the parties. During the said litigation on 18-7-2002 a compromise deed was written between the parties and complainant party obtained agricultural land measuring 69 Kanals alongwith its possession. In the meantime, the respondent No.5 in order to grab the aforesaid land executed an agreement to sell which has been prepared in connivance with stamp vendor. According to the allegations of the complainant, the document was prepared within the area of Tehsil Katchehry Mian Channu for blackmailing the complainant and have demanded Rs.One lac for relinquishing the possession of land and lodged the abovesaid, F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that according to the provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. The Civil Court which is trying the suit is competent to lodge an F.I.R. At this stage F.I.R. Lodged by the complainant is a source of unnecessary harassment to compel the petitioner to effect a compromise; that it is yet to- be determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction as to whether any fraud has been committed with the complainant. Reliance is placed on 1998 MLD 686 and 2003 MLD 1017.

4. On the contrary the learned A.A.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the respondents has strongly repelled the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that in the presence of civil suit, criminal proceedings can be taken against the petitioner. In this respect reliance has been placed on PLD 1992 Lah. 178.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. I do agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant to this effect that criminal proceedings can be taken against the petitioner in the presence of civil litigation which also finds support from the authoritative judicial precedent relied upon by the learned counsel for complainant- wherein their Lordships held as under:

"It was said that this view of clause (c) of section 195, subsection (1), will be harsh to innocent persons, and will provide dishonest private complainants with a weapon of oppression to harass them. The simple answer is that theoffences mentioned in this clause are non-cognizable offences and the police has, before it can embark upon their investigation, to obtain the permission of a Magistrate. This, in my opinion, is sufficient protection against illegal harassment."

It is further observed that the petitioner got several recourses to prove his innocence during the investigation by way of producing defence evidence as well as at the time of submission of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Before the Area Magistrate and subsequently he too got the recourse before the learned trial Court for redressal of his grievance under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force.

7. In view of the above discussion and the afore-quoted judicial precedent relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, petitioner cannot seek indulgence of this Court by way of filing the instant Constitutional petition. Resultantly, I find no substance in this petition which is hereby dismissed.

H.B.T./M-437/L Petition dismissed.