2009 PLP 1328 (YLR)

RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of case F.I.R. No.120, dated 18-2-2009, registered with Police Station Harbansupra, Lahore for offences under sections 365-B, 380, P.P.C. at the instance of Muhammad Shaaban son of Meraj Din-complainant for the abduction of his wife by the petitioner and taking away of gold ornaments and some cash amount.

2. It has been contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this six days' delayed F.I.R.; that Mst. Rubina Kausar wife of the complainant has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, in which she stated that she had left the house of her -husband on 4-2-2009 and this fact negates the contents of the F.I.R.

3. It has straightaway been observed that the petitioner has specifically been nominated in the F.I.R. and stands saddled with definite allegations. If the contents of the F.I.R. are taken at its face value, the same prima-facie discloses commission of cognizable offences. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a factual inquiry need to be undertaken, which, I am afraid, cannot be undertaken by this Court in the present summary proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Reference can profitably be made to the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCMR 276), wherein it was held that High Court has no jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact in constitutional jurisdiction. It was further observed by their lordships that if prima-facie an offence had been committed, ordinary course of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court; that High Court had no jurisdiction to quash F.I.R. by appreciation of documents produced by the parties without providing chance to cross-examine or confronting the documents in question. Likewise, in the case of Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others (2006 SCMR 512), the Hon'ble apex Court held that disputed questions of facts could not be gone into in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Even otherwise, the case in hand is at preliminary stage as having been registered on 18-2-2009, therefore, any interference by this Court at this stage in its constitutional jurisdiction would amount to pre-empting the functions of the investigating agency or the trial Court, which is nether appropriate nor desirable.

4. Allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. was regarding the abduction of Mst. Rubina Bibi, by her husband, requires holding of factual inquiry. This exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in summary proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hence, it will be pre-mature for this Court to comment upon the veracity or otherwise of the allegations contained in the F.I.R. Purpose of quashing the F.I.R. through exercise of constitutional jurisdiction is provided to save a person from the rigours of an unjustified investigation. If investigation of a criminal case has already been finalized, High Court generally slow in interfering. After submission of challan before the trial Court, alternate remedies will become available to the accused/ petitioner. Reliance is placed on the case of Mst. Azra Israr v. Inspector General of Police Punjab and others (PLD 2003 Lahore 1).

5. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that till decision of suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the alleged abductee, Mst. Rubina Bibi, against her husband, who is complainant in the impugned F.I.R., investigation should be stopped. Under section 56(c) of the Specific Relief Act, no such restraint order can be issued against the criminal investigation.

6. For what has been observed above, no occasion has been found by this Court for interference in the matter at this stage. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine.

7. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Investigating Officer and brought to his notice his stance in the shape of oral as well as documentary evidence, who, in turn, shall entertain all his evidence and investigate the matter fairly, justly and in accordance with law. H.B.T./A-71/L Petition dismissed.