2016 P Cr (PLP)

ERUM SAJAD GULL, J.

Petitioner (Usman Farid Chishti) has filed the afore titled writ petition to quash the FIR No.24 dated 3.7.2014 registered at Police Station ACE Pakpattan Sharif under section 5(2)47, P.C.A. read with sections 420/468/471, P.P.C.

2. Precise accusation against the petitioner is that in 2006 he fraudulently procured his initial appointment as SESE in the Government Primary School 62/EB Tehsil Arifwala by producing bogus BA's result card. Subsequently in 2012 he was also promoted on the basis of Master's degree which in the course of inquiry too was found to be fraudulent and bogus.

3. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that registration of criminal case is tainted with mala fides with a view to blackmail and intimidate him. Adds that the very inception of the FIR against the statutory provisions of law as the complainant is not legally authorized to lodge an FIR against the petitioner who was a Government employee. Learned counsel adds that even otherwise there are no allegations of corruption or corrupt practices against the petitioner. And in the garb of the present criminal case he is being humiliated, maligned and harassed by means of vindictive and malicious proceedings.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate General and perused the record available before this Court.

5. It has been time and again held by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan that the High Courts should refrain from quashing the FIR at the first instance while exercising the powers under Article 199 of the Constitution or under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., and only in very rare and exceptional cases the High Court should use its extraordinary jurisdictional powers to quash the FIR. It was held in 2006 CLD 625 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan and others v. Mian Asim Fareed and others that the High Court should not quash an FIR on the ground that it was registered in violation to a provision of law, if actually an offence was committed, and there were no findings that the FIR was false or maliciously lodged. It was further held "that the registration of an FIR and taking of cognizance of cases were two distinct and independent concepts under the criminal law, that if the intention of the law maker was to put any clog on the registration of an FIR, then the Legislature would have said so specifically and that if the law put a condition only on the taking of cognizance then it can never be read to imply prohibition on registration of FIRs".

6. In the case at hand report and parawise comments were filed by the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment Pakpattan, wherein it was submitted that after a complaint was filed against the petitioner regarding his bogus degrees, an investigation was conducted pursuant to the order of the Anti-Corruption Establishment authority. And during the investigation, the degrees of the petitioner were found to be fake and the petitioner was declared guilty. Whereafter, FIR was registered against the petitioner. He faced departmental inquiry and eventually resigned from his post.

7. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as 2006 SCMR 276 Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others has laid down that the High Court should not directly quash the FIR, and the person seeking to quash the FIR, must in the first instance, avail the alternate remedies. The foremost remedy was to appear before the Investigating Officer to plead and prove his innocence. Another was to approach the higher police authorities vested with powers under section 551, Cr.P.C. And under Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, the police has the powers for cancellation of case, if during the investigation, it is made out that a false case has been registered and the cancellation report so prepared by the police is placed before the Magistrate for procuring the cancellation order of the FIR. Once the investigation is completed, and the Investigating Officer submits the case before the Magistrate, then the former has the power to discharge a person under section 63, Cr.P.C., if he is found innocent. And in case the Magistrate finds that no case is made out, he would refuse to take cognizance of the matter.

8. In view of the deliberation made above and keeping in sight the judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, no case is made for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the FIR, as the alternate remedies have not been availed by the petitioner. Therefore, this petition being misconceived and devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. RR/U-10/L Petition dismissed.