Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Tariq ShamimAgha I.A. Imran
2008 P Cr
2008 P Cr. L J 795
[Lahore]
Before Tariq Shamim, J
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Writ Petition No.680 of 2008, decided on 28th January, 2008.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 392---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Petitioner was named in the F.I.R. and had been charged with committing an offence of a heinous nature---Argument that petitioner had been implicated in the case on account of enmity by the complainant side was devoid of any force as the counsel for the petitioner had not been able to point any material on the record in support of said plea---Mere declaration by the complainant that he was satisfied as to the innocence of one of accused, was not by itself sufficient to quash the F.I.R. which was under investigation---High Court could neither interfere in the functions of the police not in the investigative process---Controversy between the parties was factual in nature which could neither be agitated nor resolved in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Quashing of F.I.R. at present stage would amount to stifling the prosecution---Petition was dismissed.
Shahnaz Begum v. Honourable Judge of the Sindh and Balochistan High Court PLD 1997 SC 677; Brig. Imtiaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior Division, Islamabad 1994 SCMR 2142 and Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276 ref.
Agha I.A. Imran for Petitioner.
ORDER
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of case F.LR. No.954 of 2007, dated 6-12-2007 for offence under section 392, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara, inter alia on the grounds that the complainant through an affidavit submitted by him in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Depalpur had declared the main accused as innocent; that there was delay of twenty-one days in lodging of the F.I.R. and that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in the case by the complainant for ulterior motive.
2. The contents of the F.I.R. reveal that the petitioner and others while armed with fire-arm weapons allegedly scaled over the walls of the house of the complainant and while taking the inmates of the house hostage committed robbery. In the F.I.R. the petitioner is nominated and has been charged with committing an offence of a heinous nature. The argument that the petitioner had been implicated in the case on account of enmity by the complainant side is devoid of any force as the learned counsel has not been able to point to any material on the record in support of the plea. Mere declaration by the complainant that he was satisfied as to the innocence of one of the accused, is not by itself sufficient to quash the F.I.R. which is probably still under investigation. This Court can neither interfere in the function of the police nor in the investigative process as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Shalinaz Begum v. Honourable Judge of the Sindh and Balochistan High Courts PLD 1971 SC 677 and Brig. Imtiaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior Division, Islamabad 1994 SCMR 2142. Essentially the controversy between the parties is factual in nature which can neither be agitated nor resolved in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Further, quashing of the F.I.R. at this stage would amount to stifling the prosecution. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276 has held that quashing of an F.I.R. amounts to short circuiting the normal procedure of law as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Police Rules.
3. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./M-39/L Petition dismissed.