1995 P Cr (PLP)

Adamjee Insurance Company v. Assistant Director 1989 PCr.LJ 1921 ref, Syed Shahid Zaheer for Petitioners. Talib H. Rizvi for Respondent No.3. Sh. Ihsan Ahmad for the State. Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. petitioners seek quashment of case F.I.R. No.65, dated 12-2-1995 under section 451/380, P.P.C. and 14/6/79, Islamic Law registered with Police Station Chunian District, Kasur at the instance of Munawar Hussain.

2. As per F.I.R. the allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioner No.1 alongwith other petitioners came to Chunian and took away golden ornaments weighing 7 Tolas, 10 pairs of clothes (gents and ladies) and cash amounting to Rs.20,000 after breaking of lock of the house.

3. Briefly, facts, which led to this dispute, are that Mst. Kaneez Fatima petitioner No.1 and daughter of Nazir Ahmed petitioner No.2 was married with Munawar Hussain complainant respondent No.3 on 17-1-1992. Out of this wedlock a daughter was born; after few months the relations between the spouses became strained and the petitioner No.1 Mst. Kaneez Fatima started living with her parents at. Ropowali Tehsil Pasrur District Sialkot. The complainant of F.I.R. respondent No.3 filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Judge-Family Court, Gujranwala on 19-1-1994 which was dismissed on 15-1-1995. The petitioner No.1 Mst. Kaneez Fatima filed a suit for dissolution of marriage in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Pasrur, District Sialkot on 13-2-1994, which was decreed on 3-7-1994 and the petitioner No.1 obtained certificate of confirmation of divorce from the Union Council, Pasrur on 20-10-1994. Hence this petition. 4: At the very outset learned counsel for- respondent No.3 Munawar Hussain raised a preliminary objection and vehemently contended that in the light of law laid down by their Lordships in case Shahnaz Begum's case PLD 1971 SC 677 this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the investigation of a case and quash the proceedings of the F.I.R. in question. The law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court (Supra) as already observed by this Court in case Writ Petition No.10797 of 1994 does not give free hand to the police to play havoc with the life, honour and liberty of citizens and to use it as a lever to commit atrocities on innocent citizens under the garb of investigation and if the rule laid down is allowed to apply freely, as canvassed, each and every investigation, that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan would become redundant and citizens would be left at the mercy of police which was not the purpose of law laid down in the said case. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that still the investigation has not been initiated and the petitioners have not joined the investigation; another relevant question arises, namely, whether at this stage, this Court would be competent to quash the proceedings. I am of the view that in the circumstances of the case, this Court would be competent to quash the proceedings at this stage in light of the law laid down in case Yaqoob Khan and another v. The State and 3 others 1971 PCr.LJ 266 and case Falak Naz v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 798.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record with their able assistance. 6. 1t is an admitted fact that the complainant respondent No.3 had filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 19-1-1994 and was dismissed against him on 15-1-1995 while the suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the petitioner No-1 was decreed on 3-7-1994 and confirmation certificate of divorce was issued by the Union Council under the law on 20-10-1994. It is evident that the respondent No.3 concealed and suppressed the aforementioned facts in the F.I.R. with ulterior motives to harass and humiliate not only the petitioner No.1 rather the whole family members with the connivance of police as neither the time of occurrence nor the location from where the articles have been removed has been mentioned in the F.I.R. From the perusal of the F.I.R.; keeping in view the judgments of learned Judges of, Family Courts; no criminal offence seems to have been made out and the respondent No.3, I am constrained to observe, with the connivance of police has turned the family dispute of civil nature into a criminal offence to harass and humiliate the petitioners after the confirmation of divorce in favour of the petitioner No.1. It was held in case Ch. Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 347 as under:-- "Though ordinarily the High Court will not interfere at an interlocutory stage of a criminal proceedings pending in a subordinate Court, it will certainly interfere in order to prevent harassment of a person who is prosecuted on a charge which allegation even if taken at their face value do not constitute an offence as alleged:'

7. In case of Adamjee Insurance Company v. Assistant Director 1989 PCr.LJ 1921 it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution will be competent even against inquiry/investigation if it encroaches upon any fundamental right as guaranteed by the Constitution or it violates some other law or is motivated for mala fide reasons.

8. Front all that has been stated above, the continuance of proceedings against the petitioners in the said F.I.R. will amount to unnecessary harassment and humiliation to the family of the petitioners. The result is obvious that no Court on such allegations can convict the petitioners on the charge levelled against the petitioners. In the presence of judgments of competent Courts in favour of the petitioner No.1, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Consequently, F.I.R. No.65/95, dated 11-2-1995 under section 451/380, P.P.C. and 14/6/79, Islamic Law registered with Police Station Chunian, District Kasur is hereby quashed. As the F.I.R. is frivolous and vexatious and it has injured the honour and reputation of the petitioner No.1 and her family members the protection of which is the duty of the State functionaries including the Courts, the respondent/complainant shall pay a special cost of Rs.2,

000. N.H.Q./K-191/L ??????????? F.I.R. quashed