2011 PLP 2005 (YLR)

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.

Mst. Sharifan Bibi petitioner by means of instant petition has sought quashing of F.I.R No.487 of 2010, dated 17-5-2010, under section 327, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Saddar Jhang.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are frivolous as story narrated in the F.I.R. does not appeal to prudent mind, the same is quite unbelievable and beyond the mind of human being. It is also contended that the petitioner committed no offence rather a bull and cock story has been planted upon the petitioner. Learned counsel further stated that as in the given circumstances there is no chance of any conviction of the petitioner/accused, therefore, pendency of the F.I.R. would be nothing but abuse of process of law and wastage of valuable time of the court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at preliminary stage. I have also gone through the record available on file as well as relevant law on the subject.

4. This Court in a reported judgment Ch. Pervez Ellahi v. The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others (1995 MLD 615) has laid down following parameters on the basis of which a criminal case can be quashed while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction:- (a) when the case is of no evidence; (b) when the very registration of the case is proved to be mala fide on the face of record; (c) when the case is of purely civil nature, criminal proceedings are not warranted in law, especially to harass the accused; (d) when there is serious jurisdictional defect; and (e) when there is unexceptional delay in the disposal of the case causing deplorable mental, physical and financial torture to the person proceeded against. No ground has been substantiated by learned counsel for the petitioner falling within realm of above parameters. Moreover, after perusing the contents of F.I.R., I don't find that offence as narrated in the F.I.R is not made out. It is settled principle of law that the prosecution of a case cannot be quashed at the initial stage, which is the jurisdictional parameters of the trial court to decide the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner (s) after sifting and evaluating the prosecution evidence.

5. Similarly, in the dictum of law of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others" (2006 SCMR 276), it was held that:-- "High Court would err in law to short circuit the normal procedure of law as provided under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Party seeking the quashing of F.I.R. had alternative remedy to raise objection at the time of framing the charge against them by the trial Court or at the time of final disposal of the trial after recording the evidence

Said party had more than one alternative remedies before the trial Court under sections 265-K and 249-A, Cr.P.C. or to approach the concerned Magistrate for cancellation of the case under the provisions of Cr.P.C.

Alternative remedies available to the party enlisted."

6. For the foregoing reasons and in view of ratio decidendi of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in the above quoted judgments, I hold that the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of force, therefore, the instant petition is DISMISSED in limine. N.H.Q./S-160/L Petition dismissed.