2018 P Cr (PLP)
Haji RAUF ALI and others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, D.I. KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji RAUF ALI and others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, D.I. KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 P Cr (PLP) (Haji RAUF ALI and others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, D.I. KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmed Ali Khan for Petitioners
- Adnan Ali A.A.G. for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Ehsanullah for Respondent No. 4.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 403, 406, 420 & 468
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 - Dishonest misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating
Constitutional petition
Quashing of FIR Record showed that respondent submitted an application that petitioner sold out his property vide Wasiqas and petitioner, while committing fraud, again alienated the same property to another person
Report of respondent/complainant was entered in daily diary and enquiry under S. 156(3), Cr.P.C. was conducted and finally FIR was registered
Contents of FIR and appended record showed that no infirmity legal or otherwise or any jurisdictional defect could be found, which could justify the Court to interfere in the matter under Art. 199 of the Constitution
Respondent had come up with certain allegations and opportunity should have been given to him to prove the same
Alternate remedy in the shape of application under S. 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. was available to the petitioners when the trial would commence
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 3, 4 & 5 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN, J.
Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners seek cancellation/quashment of FIR No.320 dated 08.4.2017 under sections 403/406/420/468, P.P.C. Police Station Cantt. D.I. Khan registered against them on the complaint of complainant of respondent No.4.
2. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, A.A.G. representing the State and perused the record appended with the petition.
3. Perusal of record reveals that respondent No.4 submitted an application to SHO Police Station Cantt, D.I. Khan to the effect that vide Wasiqa No.1676 dated 19.9.1996, petitioner No.1 was owner in possession of shops Nos.1, 2 and 3 situated in Spin Zar Market, D.I. Khan and sold the same to one Yahya Hussain through Wasiqa No.1078 dated 21.5.2013 and Wasiqa No.1079 dated 21.5.2013. Petitioner No.1, while committing fraud, again alienated the same shops to petitioner No.2 vide Wasiqa No.2415 dated 14.11.2016 and Wasiqa No.3240 dated 22.11.2016. The report of respondent No.4/complainant was entered in daily diary No.22 dated 09.02.2017, enquiry under section 156(iii), Cr.P.C. was conducted and finally above referred FIR was registered.
4. While going through the contents of the FIR and record appended with the petition, one could find no infirmity legal or otherwise, or any jurisdictional defect, which could justify this Court to interfere in the matter under Article 199 of the Constitution. In case titled, "Doctor Ghulam Mustafa v. The State" reported as (2008 SCMR 76), the apex Court held that High Court has no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to take the role of investigation agency and to quash the FIR, while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution, unless and until very exceptional circumstance exists.
5. Even otherwise, respondent No.4/complainant has come up with certain allegations and justice demands that he may be given an opportunity to prove the same. However, alternate remedy in the shape of application under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C, as the case may be, is available to the petitioners when the trial commenced. In case titled, "Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan" reported as (PLD 1967 SC 317), the apex Court held that remedy of quashment of proceedings is not available, when alternate remedy is available in the shape of 265-K or 249-A, Cr.P.C. Ref: PLD 1992 SC 353, 2006 SCMR 276, 2006 SCMR 1192 and 2008 SCMR 76.
6. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 challenged the vires of Wasiqa No.1078 by filing civil suit which is pending adjudication, cannot help them because the law provides that criminal and civil proceedings can run parallel.
7. In view of the above, finding no merits and substance in the petition under consideration, it is hereby dismissed. JK/339/P Petition dismissed.