2007 PLP 25 (MLD)
MUKHTAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 25 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUKHTAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 25 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 25 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 25 (MLD) (MUKHTAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chauhan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468 & 471
Constitutional petition
Quashing of F.I.R.
Allegations levelled in impugned F.I.R., which belonged to the realm of a factual controversy requiring holding of an inquiry into disputed questions of fact, were denied by petitioners/accused
Such exercise could not be undertaken by High Court in proceedings under Art.199 of the Constitution
Impugned F.I.R. was still at investigation stage Police was under a legal obligation to investigate a crime reported to it and interfering in statutory duty of the police at such early stage would amount to stifling prosecution
Quashing of F.I.R. would amount to short circuiting normal procedure of law as provided under Cr.P.C. and Police Rules
Accused had more than one alternate remedies available under Cr.P.C.
No occasion having been found for interference in the matter by High Court, petition for quashing F.I.R. was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.-Seeks quashment of F.I.R. No.613, dated 29-8-2006 for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar Jhang inter alia on the grounds that the provisions of section 420, P.P.C are not attracted to the case of the petitioners whereas the offences under sections 468/471, P.P.C. are non-cognizable offences, that the allegation against the petitioners is regarding forgery of Nikahnama which can only be determined by the Family Court; that in the application filed by the complainant before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Petitioner No,.4 was not even arrayed as an accused; that petitioner No.1 has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending before the learned Judge Family Court and that the case against the petitioners was false and fabricated, hence the same was liable to be quashed.
2. The allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. are denied by the petitioners, which belong to the realm of a factual controversy requiring holding of an inquiry into disputed questions of fact. Such exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. The impugned F.I.R. was lodged on 29-8-2006 thus still at investigation stage. The police is under a legal obligation to investigate a crime reported to it and interfering in the statutory duty of the police at this early stage would amount to stifling the prosecution. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCMR 276) has held that quashment of F.I.R. would amount to short circuiting the normal procedure of law as provided under Cr.P.C. and Police Rules and that the accused have more than one alternate remedies available under the Cr.P.C.
3. No occasion has, thus, been found for interference in the matter by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-563/L Petition dismissed.