2008L4647 (PLP)
SAIFULLAH SHAH and another — Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008L4647 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J |
| Parties | SAIFULLAH SHAH and another — Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008L4647 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008L4647 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008L4647 (PLP) (SAIFULLAH SHAH and another — Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sarfraz Khan Gondal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.506/34
Constitutional petition
Quashing of F.I.R.
Petitioners/accused persons had sought quashing of F.I.R. registered against them on the grounds that, they had not committed any cognizable offence and their criminal prosecution, was not only misuse of process of law, but was also outcome of civil litigation between the parties and that petitioners were equipped with sufficient proof of their innocence, but same was not being entertained by the Investigating Officer out of colourable exercise of his power
Stance canvassed in the petition rested on disputed factual controversy, required determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence, but such exercise could not be undertaken by the High Court while discharging jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution
Sphere of authority of the Investigating Officer, however was fixed by a framework given by law under which he was working; it was unimaginable that the Investigating Officer would flout the prescribed limits, out of colourable exercise of his power, refusing to bring on record the material in proof of innocence of the petitioners, which he was bound under law to entertain
Petitioners had the right to prove their innocence before the Investigating Officer by bringing on record all relevant material
Investigating Officer was' directed by High Court to record statement of the petitioners and to entertain the entire evidence of their innocence and to consider the same before preparing his report under S.173, Cr. P. C. The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Raoy and others PLD 1964 SC 636; Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others 1993 SCMR 618 and Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others 2006 SCMR 1957 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.
Petitioners being accused of criminal case vide F.I.R. No.101, dated 18-12-2007 under section 506/34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Jaura Kalan, District Khushab, prayed its quashment on the ground that they have not committed any cognizable offence and their criminal prosecution is not only in misuse of process of law but is also outcome of civil litigation between the parties. It was contended that petitioners are equipped with sufficient proof of their innocence but the same is not being entertained by the Investigation Officer/respondent No.2, out of colourful exercise of his powers. It was further emphasized that offence under section 506, P.P.C. is not made out from apparent narrations in the F.I.R. A direction in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court was prayed to be issued, in this behalf.
2. Having heard the case and perused the record, it became apparent that stance canvassed in this petition rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence but such exercise cannot be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of this country. These canons have already attained finality through consistent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, right from the case of The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Raoy and others PLD 1964 SC 636 up-to-date, including the cases of Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others 1993 SCMR 618 and Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others 2006 SCMR 1957. In spite of this constitutional handicap, it is obvious that being a statutory functionary, sphere of authority of the Investigating Officer/ respondent No.2 is fixed by a framework given by law, under which he is working. It is unimaginable that the Investigating Officer/respondent No.2 will flout the prescribed limits, out of colourful exercise of his power, refusing to bring on record the material in proof of innocence of the petitioners, which he is bound under law to entertain. It is right of the petitioners to prove their innocence before the Investigating Officer/ respondent No.2 by bringing on record all the relevant material. I accordingly direct the Investigating Officer/respondent statement of the petitioners and to entertain the entire evidence of their innocence and to consider the same before preparing his report under section 173, C.P.C. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./S-60/L Order accordingly.