1997 P Cr (PLP)

PLD 1966 SC 281 and 1993 PCr.LJ 53 ref., Hassan Ahmad Kanwar for Petitioner. Subah Sadiq for Respondent No.4. This Constitutional petition is tiled for the quashment of F.I.R. No.62 of 1996, dated 6-3-1996 registered at Police Station City Depalpur, District Okara at the report of Muhammad Afzal son of Muhammad Sharif respondent No.4 against the present petitioners Mian Muhammad Hanif and others.

2. It is contended that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were carrying on the business as contractors jointly. There was some money dispute between the two for which a suit for recovery and rendition of accounts was filed by Muhammad Afzal, a son of the present petitioner against respondent No.4 i.e.; the complainant of the F.I.R. in question. However, the latter i.e., Muhammad Afzal filed the present F.I.R. in which it was alleged that the petitioner and his son while petitioner armed with rifle and his son Muhammad Afzal armed with pistol fired at him with their respective weapons in order to murder him but luckily both the fires missed and hit the wall the door respectively. It is further contended that the F.I.R. is misconceived, mala fide and has been filed as a counterblast of the civil suit instituted by the petitioner. As such, it is prayed that the same be quashed or atleast the proceedings in the F.I.R. be stayed for which a reference is made to PLD 1966 SC 281.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State opposed the writ petition on the ground that both the matters were different with a distinct origin. In this regard, it was contended that the suit for recovery and rendition of accounts had nothing to do with the criminal assault made by the petitioner and his accomplices to take the life of the respondent/complainant. The F.I.R. was supported by the eye-witnesses and also circumstantial evidence because the weapons of offence were recovered alongwith the empties from the spot. It was alleged that though both the weapons were licensed weapons of the petitioner but that would not absolve his criminal liability for commission of offence for which a case under section 324/452/34, P.P.C. has been registered. Secondly, it is contended that the occurrence contained in the F.I.R. in dispute took place at 8-30 p.m. on 5-3-1996 and the F.I.R. was registered on the next following day at 2-30 p.m. The suit for rendition of accounts was, however, instituted on 7-3-1996 with mala fide intention to neutralize the occurrence, which the petitioner and his accomplices had committed two days earlier. It was, therefore, contended that the F.I.R. in question was based on true facts that the challan has already been sent to the Court where the trial is in progress as the statements of two witnesses have already been recorded. In such a situation the writ petition was allegedly meritless and ought to be dismissed in view of the principle laid down in 1993 PCr.LJ 53 (Lahore).

4. I have considered the above submissions and find that the trial in the challan case is in progress and two witnesses have already been examined. As such, it will not be desirable to make any comments on the merits of the case at this stage lest it may prejudice the trial itself. It is enough to say that the R prosecution has evidence to support the version in the F.I.R. A copy of the plaint attached with this writ petition shows that the civil suit was instituted on 7-3-1996, whereas the occurrence stated in the F.I.R. had taken place on 5-3-1996. In such a situation and particularly when the prosecution has also collected the circumstantial evidence such as recovery of the empties from the spot and the weapons used during the occurrence, it would be a fit case for judicial test at the trial. There is no need to stay the proceedings in the criminal case because the subject-matter of both the incidents is different.

5. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any good ground to quash the impugned F.I.R. The writ petition being meritless is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-313/L Petition dismissed.