1998 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Sharif Chohan for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Kabir, A.A.‑G. for Respondent. The petitioner has brought this Constitutional petition claiming that she was putting‑tip in a house situated at Asasi Colony, Bajwa Market, Istiqlalabad, Sargodha, but respondent No.2 desires to occupy the said house by illegal means. In pursuance of his nefarious designs, he twice attacked the petitioner and her husband resulting into registration of two cases vide F.I.R. No.96, dated 25‑6‑1996 under sections 337‑F, 337‑F(iii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and F.I.R., No.139 of 1997, dated 10‑6‑1997 under sections 354 and 34, P.P.C. at Police Station Factory Area, District Sargodha. As a counter‑blast to these cases, respondent No.2 got registered a case under sections 452, 337‑D, 337‑F(1)' 337‑H(2) and 34, P.P.C., at Police Station Factory Area, Sargodha vide F.I.R. No.173 of 1997, dated 29‑7‑1997, against the petitioner's husband and her neighbour Meraj Khan, a ease witness of F.I.R., No.96 of 1996. It has been alleged that the case registered vide F.I.R. No.173 of 1997 was mala fide and collusive. It was, therefore, prayed that F.I.R., No. 173 of 1997 dated 29‑7‑1997 be quashed and cancelled or in the alternate D.I.‑G., Police, Sargodha, (respondent No.3) be directed for entrustment of the investigation of the case to some honest police officer. The petitioner has also prayed that the bailiff of this Court may be deputed to recover the petitioner's husband and Meraj Khan who were taken into custody by the police under the aforesaid case registered vide F.I.R. No. 173 of 1997 and be set at liberty.

2. The petitioner had earlier moved a petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. for the recovery of her husband and Meraj Khan on the ground that they were being detained in a fabricated case. The said petition was, however withdrawn on the 11th August, 1997, for filing a 'fresh petition duly documented'. There is no denial that both Abdul Aziz, the husband of the petitioner, and her neighbour Meraj Khan have been arrested in pursuance of a criminal case registered against them. The issue that the case is false and fabricated has to be determined after thorough investigation thereof. Hence, simply on the statement of the petitioner that F.I.R., No. 173 of 1997 is mala fide and collusive, the same cannot be quashed at this stage. In view thereof, following the principle laid down in Ahmad Saeed v. State 1996 SCMR 186, it would not be appropriate to quash the F. I. R., on the ground of mala fide.

3. Likewise, notwithstanding that the petitioner has moved an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for release of her husband and neighbour mentioned above oil furnishing surety, the proper course would be that the petitioner may, if so advised, move for their bail to the concerned Magistrate.

4. Similarly, there appears no reason for issuance of any direction at this stage for transfer of investigation to any other officer than the local police. The Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, shall, however, ensure that the investigation in all the three cases registered vide F.I.Rs., Nos.96 of 1996, 139 of 1997 and 173 of' 1997 at Police Station Factory Area, Sar2odha; carried out expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner may, if at any later stage, feel that the investigation is not carried out product, apply to the senior officers of the police who should give due consideration to her representation.

4. As a result of the above discussion, at this stage any interference by this Court is not warranted. The present petition is accordingly disposed of in limine. H.B.T./T‑28/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.