Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS Respondent: STATE
1999 M L D 942
1999 M L D 942
[Lahore]
Before Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, J
MUHAMMAD SHARIF---Petitioner
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3670-Q of 1996, decided on 12th June, 1996.
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)---
----S.10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition-- Scope---Quashing of F.I.R.---F.I.R. had been lodged at the instance of the complainant on the allegation that his own daughter had been caught red-handed while committing Zina with the accused by the persons named therein, which allegation was contended to be false and malicious---Such factual controversies could not be resolved without holding an inquiry which exercise was not possible in the Constitutional ,petition---Accused had adequate remedies by way of placing his defence before the Investigating Officer, by approaching the Magistrate competent to pass discharge order and cancel the F.I.R. and finally before the Trial Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Malik Muhammad Shabbir Langrial for Petitioner.
ORDER
Prays for quashment of an F.I.R. bearing No.51 of 1996 of Police Station, Seetpur of District Muzaffargarh which F.I.R. had been lodged at the instance of Allah Diwaya complainant on the allegation that his own daughter, namely, Mst. Mehran had been found committing Zina with one Muhammad Sharif and that the two had been caught red-handed, amongst others, by the persons named in the F.I.R. The learned counsel contends that these allegations are false and malicious.
2. It is not possible for me to resolve factual controversies in exercise of the extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. Needless to say that it will not be possible for me to hold that the accusations abovementioned were false unless I hold an inquiry which would involve recording of statements of the concerned persons and permission to cross-examine them. If such an exercise was to be undertaken by this Court, then the entire law enacted through the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for investigation and subsequent trials would become redundant. No extraordinary circumstances exist on record which could persuade me to adopt such a course and to pre-empt the jurisdiction lawfully vested in the Investigating Officer and subsequently in the learned trial Court.
3. The petitioner has adequate remedies firstly by placing his defence before the Investigating Officer - and thereafter, approaching the learned concerned Magistrate who is competent to discharge an accused person of any case and who is also competent to cancel F.I.Rs., in terms of Chapter 24.7 of the Police Rules and finally before the learned trial Court. In view of what has been noticed above, I find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
N.H.Q./M-428/L Petition dismissed