2010 PLP 738 (MLD)

HASSAN RAZA PASHA, J.

Through this petition the petitioners have sought for quashment of F.I.R. No.89, dated 19-6-2009 for offence under sections 379/411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Lilla District Jhelum.

2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are co-sharers in the disputed Khasra numbers which land is still unpartitioned; that according to first demarcation report of Revenue Officer of the Halqa, dated 31-3-2009 trees were cut from Khasra Nos.2930 of 2004 and 2930 of 2007 and not from Khasra Nos. 2917, 2919 and 2944; that the complainant in connivance with the revenue department managed to get a report in his favour which has been challenged before the DDO (R) Pind Dadan Khan District Jhelum who set aside the demarcation report of Naib Tehsildar, dated 23-5-2009 vide order, dated 1-10-2009; that the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. are palpably false and the impugned F.I.R. is based upon distorted facts and sheer mala fide on the part of the complainant party; that since the land in dispute is unpartitioned, therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon 2006 PCr.LJ 1900 and 2006 PCr.LJ (Lah.) 1795.

3. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.A.-G. contended that at this stage when the investigation is going on and the matter has not been finalized concerning the submission of challan against the accused, this Court has no jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to quash the F.I.R. by discussing in detail the facts of the case which were otherwise controverted. Learned counsel has relied upon 2006 SCMR 276 and PLD 2009 Karachi 273.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant material placed on record. As per Revenue Record available on the file, the petitioners are co-sharers in the disputed land but in `khana kasht' their names are not mentioned. Prima facie, complainant alleged that the petitioners and other co-accused while armed with deadly weapons, cut the trees from the land possessed by the complainant party. If such allegations are accepted as correct at their face value, then the same prima facie disclose commission of some cognizable offences even other than the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. In these circumstances the local police had no option but to register the impugned F.I.R. The allegations levelled against the petitioners and their co-accused in the impugned F.I.R. are purely factual in nature and the petitioner's rebuttal of such allegations advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner also necessarily require holding of an enquiry into disputed question of facts. Such exercise cannot be taken by this Court in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. The impugned F.I.R. is still at its investigation stage. It is a statutory duty of the police to investigate a crime reported to it and this Court would not like to scuttle or stifle the said duty of the police at such a premature stage. It is also to be noted that besides availing the constitutional remedy there was also alternate remedy for the petitioners by making application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. after submission of challan or by invoking the jurisdiction of competent Court, if so desired.

5. For what has been discussed above no occasion has been found for interference in the matter at this stage and the petition is dismissed.

6. Needless to observe that if at a subsequent stage the petitioners considered that they are entitled for acquittal they shall be at liberty to approach the Court, seized with the matter for redressal of their grievances by invoking its jurisdiction and if such request is made, the Court shall dispose it of independently without being influenced in any manner from the instant order. H.B.T/Z-9/L Petition dismissed.