JAVED AHMAD Versus State

ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to seek quashment of F.I.R. No.419 of 2005, dated. 8-6-2005, under sections 420, 468, 471 and 419, P.P.C. at Police Station Phoolnagar, District Kasur.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3, complainant had filed a suit for specific performance on 28-3-2005 prior to the registration of F.I.R. The Petitioner No.1, submitted a written statement on 1-6-2005. The learned counsel submits that F.I.R. No.419 of 2005 was registered on 8-6-2005 after filing the suit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the alleged forged document is dated 13-5-2005, since the alleged offence has been committed during the pendency of the suit, therefore, F.I.R. could not have been registered in view of provisions of section 195(c), Cr.P.C.

3. According to the complainant of F.I.R. No.419 of 2005, Javed Ahmad accused had. entered into agreement to sell dated 24-12-2004 about four acres of land. In the said deed, the accused Javed Ahmad had received Rs. 11,00,000 as earnest money, but later on in greed of higher price Javed Ahmad backed out from the agreement to sell. Whereupon, the complainant filed a suit before the Civil Court. Javed Ahmad did not file the written statement. The complainant further alleged that accused Javed Ahmad forged a deed of "cancellation of agreement to sell". The complainant further alleged that the forged document was prepared by the accused, Muhammad Siddiq, Faisal Mumtaz, Muhammad Shafiq and some unknown persons. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the forged document has been prepared on behalf of the complainant by affixing fake thumb-impression and signatures of the petitioner and has been incorrectly dated 13-5-2005, in order to restrain police to register the F.I.R. and to investigate the same.

4. In support of validity of registration of the F.I.R. No.419 of 2005, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 (complainant) submits that the said forged document has been dated 13-5-2005 to show that it is prepared during the pendency of the suit. He denies totally that such document was ever prepared by the respondent No.3 (complainant).

5. Both learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents rely upon Muhammad Shari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narowal and 5 others PLD 1992 Lah. 178.

6. In my humble opinion, PLD 1992 Lah. 178 is not applicable in the facts of the present case and it does not help to either of the parties. In the said report, preparation of forgery was admitted prior to filing the suit. In the instant case, the complainant does not agree that he ever prepared or forged document to cancel the agreement to sell. Likewise, the petitioners do not concede that they forged the document. The petitioners claim that it was the complainant who executed the cancellation of agreement to sell on 13-5-2005, so both parties are blaming each other for preparing the forged document. Whether it was forged before filing suit or after is a secondary point in the facts of the present case. Therefore, I am afraid that PLD 1992 Lab. 178 is not applicable. As far as ratio of the judgment is concerned, both learned counsel agree to that i.e. if a forged document is prepared during the pendency, section 195(c), Cr.P.C. is applicable but it' the forged document is prepared prior to filing of the suit, F.I.R. can be registered and section 195(c), Cr.P.C. is not attracted.

7. For the above reason, I am afraid no interference is required from this Court on any legal proposition. The question involved in the instant case is determination of certain facts. Firstly, whether document for cancellation of agreement to sell was forged or not? Secondly, if the said document is forged, who forged it? Thirdly, what is the exact date of the forgery? The said three questions relate to a thorough investigation which is neither permissible nor possible for this Court.

8. In Brig. (R) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan 1994 SCMR 2142, it was held that High Court is not an investigator. Authority to investigate a criminal case vests in the police and not in Court. A half century ago, it was held in Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad AIR (32) 1945 PC 18 that function of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function.

9. In view or the above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to S.P. Irves Ligation, Kasur to investigate this case (F.I.R. No.419 of 2005 of Police Station Phoolnagar) personally, to determine three points indicated above. The parties may proceed further in the wake of outcome of the investigation.

10. H.B.T./J-77/L Order accordingly.