2007 PLP 1286 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 7 others-Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1286 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M.Bilal Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 7 others-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1286 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1286 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M.Bilal Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1286 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 7 others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Agha Abul Hassan Arif for Petitioner.
- Syed Hassam Qadir Shah and Mian M. Ismail Thaheem for Respondent No.8./ Complainant.
- M. BILAL KHAN, J.---The petitioner Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Hayat seeks quashing of F.I.R. No.368 of 2006 dated . 6-6-2006, for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, read with section 109, P.P.C. and F.I.R. No.381 of 2006 for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, S-Town District Sargodha at the instance of Syed Ghulam Abbas, Advocate.
- 4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General also opposed this petition for quashing the F.I.R. and submitted that allowing the petition for quashing the F.LR. would amount to stifling the prosecution case which would not be appropriate.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.420, 468 & 471
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Quashing of F.I.R.
Petitioner had sought quashing of F.I.R. alleging that complainant was motivated by malice--Serious allegations were made against petitioner and contention of petitioner with regard to malice of complainant needed factual inquiry, which High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, could not undertake
Challan had been submitted and petitioner was appearing before the Trial Court
Trial Court; in circumstances was the best forum where petitioner could agitate all his grievances
Even otherwise despite repeated queries of the court, petitioner had failed to explain as to how he came to possess property in dispute
Petition was dismissed. Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276; Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others 2006 SCMR 512 and Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others 2006 SCMR 1957 ref. Tahir Mehmood Gondal, A.A.-G. for the State. Abdul Rahman A.S.-I. Police Station, Satellite Town, District Sargodha with Record.
Judgment & Decree
M. BILAL KHAN, J.
The petitioner Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Hayat seeks quashing of F.I.R. No.368 of 2006 dated . 6-6-2006, for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, read with section 109, P.P.C. and F.I.R. No.381 of 2006 for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, S-Town District Sargodha at the instance of Syed Ghulam Abbas, Advocate.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is motivated by malice; in support of his claim of ownership in property, he is relying on Fard-e-Malkiat which is a dubious document; .that electricity meters had been installed as far back as in the year 1982 in the name of Muhammad Aslam, and in the year 2001 in the name of Muhammad Ashraf; that the long silence of the complainant for almost two decades is a proof of the malice of the complainant who is bent upon dispossessing the petitioner from the property; that in fact one criminal transaction has been bifurcated into two so as to cause harassment to the petitioner and his entire family and that no inquiry had been held before registration of the F.I.R.
3. On the other hand Mr. Hassam Qadir Shah, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that there are. serious allegations against the petitioner; that the contentions raised on his behalf belong to the realm of factual inquiry and this Court while seized of a constitutional petition cannot undertake such an exercise; that challans in both F.I.Rs. Nos.368 of 2006 and 381 of 2006 had been submitted before the learned trial Court as far back as on 2-7-2006, and 3-8-2006, respectively and therefore, it was for the trial Court to decide the cases.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General also opposed this petition for quashing the F.I.R. and submitted that allowing the petition for quashing the F.LR. would amount to stifling the prosecution case which would not be appropriate.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I tend to agree with Mr. Hassam Qadir Shah, the learned counsel for the complainant that in order to appreciate the contentions raised, on behalf of the petitioner a factual inquiry needs to be undertaken. The Honourable apex Court has time and again disapproved quashing of criminal proceedings/F.I.Rs. at preliminary stage. Only in the current year i.e. calendar year 2006 the Honourable' apex Court in as many as three cases expressed its disapproval of such a. practice. Reference may be made to the cases of "Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others" 2006 SCMR 276, "Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others" 2006 SCMR 512 and "Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. A Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others" 2006 SCMR 1957. The petitioner does not deny that challans have been submitted and that he is appearing before the learned trial Court. In this backdrop the trial Court is the best forum where the petitioner can agitate all his grievances. Even otherwise despite repeated queries of the Court the petitioner has failed to explain as to how he came to possession the property in dispute. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M-736/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.