2012 PLP 472 (YLR)

ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.

The petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No. 310 dated 1-7-2011 for the offences under sections 420/406, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sialkot on the ground that registration of F.I.R. is result of mala fide on the part of the complainant as well as the police and that the petitioner has committed no offence.

2. The counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the petition submits that the petitioner has already lodged a criminal case against the complainant and that subsequent F.I.R. in another police station is liable to be quashed as the same is an afterthought just to blackmail the petitioner with intent to sidetrack the investigation of the earlier F.I.R. No.125 of 2011 dated 18-2-2011 registered under section 379, P.P.C. at Police Station Muradpur, District Sialkot.

3. Arguments have been heard. Truthfulness or falsehood of allegations contained in an F.I.R. can only be ascertained during the course of investigation or after the filing of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. by a court of competent jurisdiction. The practice of quashing the F.I.R., by this Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is not approved by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. In case reported Col.Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCMR 276) it was held as under:-- "It is pertinent to mention here that established practice before the creation of country was that learned High Courts were very reluctant to quash the proceedings under constitutional jurisdiction. The object and reason behind this practice was that the High Courts had to quash the proceedings summarily which would create chaos due to the following reasons: (i) All the procedure and authorities prescribed under Cr.P.C. would become redundant. (ii) To interfere in the sphere allotted to the executive organ. (iii) There is every likelihood of injustice in a summary disposal. (iv) The cases are quashed at initial stages then it would create law and order situation as the people may resort to taking revenge from the opposite party. (v) Deviation from the past practice is always dangerous. (vi) Superior Courts always keep judicial restraint in view of Article 4 of the Constitution read with Article 5(2) of the Constitution."

4. The following remedies were held to be available to the accused-person:-- (a) To appear before the Investigating Officer to prove their innocence. (b) To approach the competent higher authorities of the Investigating Officer having powers vide section 551 of Cr.P.C. (c) After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has to submit case to the concerned Magistrate and the Magistrate concerned has power to discharge them under section 63 of the Cr.P.C. in case of their innocence. (d) In case he finds the respondents innocent, he would refuse to take cognizance of the matter. (e) Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules of 1934 makes a provision for cancellation of cases during the course of investigation under the orders of the concerned Magistrate. (f) There are then remedies which are available to accused persons who claim to be innocent and who can seek relief without going through the entire length of investigations.

5. In view of the dictum laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan it is not deemed appropriate to interfere with the investigation of the case. The petitioner may, if so desires avail any of the aforementioned alternative remedies available to him. H.B.T./M-295/L Petition dismissed.