2006 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.

Through this petition the petitioner has sought quashment of F.I.R. No.367 of 2005 dated 5-9-2005 registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 under section 379, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Kabirwala District Khanewal.

2. The necessary facts which necessitated the filing of this writ petition are that Zulfiqar complainant/respondent No.4 got the afore-mentioned criminal case registered against the petitioner and others with the allegation that they removed trees of different kinds from the land owned and possessed by him on 31-8-2005 and thus, had committed the theft.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner and others are based upon distorted facts, fabricated evidence and sheer mala fide on the part of respondents being in league with each other; that there is unexplained delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R.; that as per record petitioner is owner in possession of land in dispute and respondent No.2/complainant has no concern whatsoever with the disputed land; that offence under section 379, P.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner; that civil litigation is pending adjudication between the complainant and accused party and dispute of land is purely a question of civil nature.

4. On the other hand learned A.A.-G. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Instant case has been registered on 5th of September, 2005 and investigation in the case has not been completed so far and at this is early stage of criminal proceedings. No interference is warranted unless Court is satisfied from the cogent material that the prosecution was launched for improper motive to harass the accused or its continuance would be an abuse of process of law as has been held in Naseem Baig v. M. Iqbal and others 1991 SCMR

315. It has also been held in PLD 1967 SC 461 that remedy is not to be used to divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure. It has also been held in PLD 1.967 SC 317 that remedy of quashment of proceedings is not available when alternate remedy is available in the shape of sections 265-K, and 249-A, Cr.P.C. Honourable Supreme Court has observed that quashment proceedings at early stage is neither permissible nor preferred and every criminal case should be allowed to proceed on its merits 1968 SCMR 386, PLD 1981 SC 607 and 1971 SCMR

698. It has also been held in Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan and others 1994 SCMR 2142 that High Court cannot assume the role of investigator.

6. For what has been discussed above the instant petition having no force is dismissed. H.B.T./B-119/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.