2018 PLP 223 (YLRN)

M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, J.

The petitioners-accused have filed the instant application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR No.19, 2017, dated 05.03.2017, registered against them on the complaint of Muhammad Rasheed Khan, Forest Guard, at Police Station, Dhirkote, in offences under sections 6/FR and 14,EHA.

2. Sardar Ata Ellahi Abbasi, the learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that FIR was lodged with delay of 18 days. He further contended that 'Shamlat-Deh' land is under possession of petitioners since their ancient and regarding the aforesaid land a civil suit is subjudice before Civil Judge Dhirkote, however, complainant with connivance of opponent party got registered the aforesaid FIR; hence, offences under sections 6/FR and 14, EHA do not attract in the instant case. The learned Counsel in support of his version relied upon 1969 PCr.LJ 285 and prayed for quashment of FIR.

3. On the contrary, Sardar Javaid Naz, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of State, submitted that FIR is not delayed one, because report was submitted at police Station on 14.02.2007, which was forwarded to Tehsildar and then to concerned Patwari, who reported on 01.03.2007, and thereafter FIR was registered on 05.03.2017. He further contended that although trees were removed from 'Shamlat-Deh' land, but management of the aforesaid land is with Forest Department; therefore, before removing trees, a written prior permission of authorized officer, should have been taken; hence, at this stage FIR may not be quashed. He finally prayed for dismissal of quashment petition and placed reliance upon 2014 SCR 183.

4. I have given my dispassionate thought to the arguments addressed at Bar and have gone through record made available.

5. It is pertinent to observe here that the powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. have been intended to prevent abuse of the process of the Court but not to stifle the prosecution and this Court may quash FIR which does not contain any definite or clear allegation or the allegation levelled does not disclose the commission of any offence, otherwise the quashment of FIR at any early stage where no evidence has been recorded would give an impression of stifling of criminal proceedings and if the allegations levelled in the case do not disclose any offence, it is for the trial Court to consider evidence and determine whether the allegations are true or false. Therefore, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed simply on the ground that the accused has claimed that the allegations levelled against them are false. My aforesaid view finds support from a case reported as Haji Karim Bakhsh and another v. The State (PLD 1982 Peshawar 20), wherein, the following principle was enunciated:-- "Thus, I find that the test laid down for interference in pending criminal proceedings is that if the proceedings are allowed to be continued, it would result in grave miscarriage of justice and there would be no other provision of law by which the aggrieved party would seek relief. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should not normally be invoked where another remedy is available. The inherent powers ought to be exercised only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and in order to advance the interest of justice. The High Court may quash proceedings which do not contain any definite or clear accusation or the accusation made does not disclose the commission of any offence, otherwise the quashment of proceedings at an early stage where no evidence has been recorded would give an impression of stifling of criminal proceedings. If the allegations made in the-case do not disclose any offence, it is for the trial Court to weigh the evidence and determine whether the allegations are true or false. The proceedings cannot be quashed simply for the reason that the accused has claimed that the allegations against him are false and fantastic. The test laid down also is that the allegations in the complaint taken at their face-value and accepted in their entirety should not constitute an offence as alleged."

6. At preliminary stage, in order to consider the question of quashing FIR when evidence is yet to come, the Court has to take allegations against accused at their face value and accept the same in their entirety and then see if they do not constitute any offence for which a prosecution be warranted, the Court in its limited jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. will not embark upon an enquiry to ascertain the innocence or otherwise of the accused and if the allegations disclose an offence, the case cannot be quashed merely because the accused denies the allegations and asserts that he has a good defense, when his defense is yet to come. Thus, ordinarily the guilt or innocence of an accused depend on the totality of the facts and circumstances revealed during the trial. Therefore, without allowing police to investigate matter and then prosecution to produce evidence, it would not be proper to accept the instant petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.

7. The crux of above discussion is that, I am not persuaded to accept the instant quashment petition, which is hereby dismissed. JK/2/Sh.C (AJ&K) Petition dismissed.