P L D 2019 Lahore 373 (PLP)

Mst. Nazia (petitioner) who is an abductee of case FIR No.565/2018 registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. at Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, through the instant writ petition has sought quashing of said FIR on multifarious grounds, but the office has raised objection on maintainability of constitutional petition for quashing of FIR, by an abductee/witness. This is the precise question before us.

2. We have heard the respective arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

3. Although the jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution in the matters relating to quashing of FIRs, is almost settled, but leaving that aspect aside, we would confine ourselves to the legal question (objection) before us. There can be no difference of opinion that jurisdiction of this Court is conceived and regulated through Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and it is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution that the petitioner should have a locus standi to institute the proceedings or in other words the petitioner should be an aggrieved party from the impugned action. Pivotal judgment of the apex Court on this issue is "Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore" (PLD 1969 SC 223). In another case titled "Dr. Imran Khattak and another v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, PSO To Chief Justice and others" (2014 SCMR 122) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as follows: "It would exercise such jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (c) on the application of an aggrieved person while under 199(1)(b)(i) & (ii) on the application of any person whether aggrieved or not, and not on an information or on its own knowledge. In the case of "Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. Sargodha Bhera Bus Service and others" (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 437), this Court held that a High Court was not competent merely on an information or on its own knowledge to commence certiorari proceedings or other proceedings of a similar nature under Article 170 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1956. In the case of "Fazl-e-Haq, Accountant General, West Pakistan v. The State" (PLD 1960 SC (Pak) 295), this Court reiterated the view by holding that the extraordinary jurisdiction relating to a writ could only be exercised by the High Court when moved by a party whose legal rights have been denied" Moreover, in "Hafiz Hamadullah v. Saifullah Khan and others" (PLD 2007 SC 52) the apex Court held as follows: "With regard to the first objection it may be noted that under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked by an aggrieved person which denotes a person who has suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him or wrongfully refused him something which he was legally entitled to. It is also the requirement that the person invoking the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution has to establish that any of his legal or fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution has been violated resulting in legal loss" On the above touchstone, the learned counsel were specifically asked as to how the petitioner is aggrieved of registration of an FIR, wherein, she is alleged to be an abductee or may also be called as prosecution's star witness but surely not an accused of the occurrence reported therein, but the learned counsel have not been able to come out with any answer. We are however convinced that petitioner (abductee) or any witness of the FIR, cannot be termed as "aggrieved party" as by no stretch of imagination it can be said that any of their fundamental right is infringed by registration of FIR; they have suffered any loss; they have been wrongfully deprived or refused something which they were legally entitled to, or any restriction has been imposed upon them. Consequently, we hold that abductee/witness do not fall within the definition of "aggrieved party" to maintain a writ petition to seek quashing of FIR. The office objection, therefore, is upheld. MWA/N-10/L Office objection upheld.