2008 PLP 2535 (YLR)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of F.I.R. No.79, dated 27-2-2007 registered under section 380, P.P.C. read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), P.P.C. with Police Station Saddar Sargodha.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and others are alleged to have committed theft of Rs.3,50,000 from the house of the complainant and consequently, the aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case and, therefore, the F.I.R. being void, illegal and registered without lawful authority was liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General on instructions from the police officer contended that after a thorough investigation the petitioner was found to be fully implicated in the crime and consequently, challan had been prepared which was likely to be submitted in the Court in the near future. Further stated that the petitioner had an alternate remedy available to her by way of filing an application for acquittal before the trial Court, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.

5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record.

6. The petitioner and others are nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role has been ascribed to them of committing theft. During investigation the petitioner and others were found to be fully implicated in the crime and consequently challan has been prepared which is likely to be submitted in the trial Court in the near future. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R., in the light of the result of the investigation, do not appear to be false or without substance. Further as has been submitted by the learned A.A.-G., after submission of challan the petitioner shall have an alternate remedy available to her by way of filing a petition before the learned trial Court seeking her acquittal. Moreover, the complainant has levelled serious allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R. which have been denied by the petitioner. The controversy, therefore, falls within the domain of disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276 and Muhammad Mansha v. S.H.O. Police Station City Chiniot District Jhang PLD 2006 SC 598 has deprecated quashment of F.I.Rs. It has been observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq supra that quashment of an F.I.R. would amount to short circuiting the normal procedure of law as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Police Rules and that the accused have more than one alternate remedy available under the Code.

7. No occasion has, thus, been found for interference in the matter by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T. /G-26/L Petition dismissed.