2004 PLP 61 (MLD)

We have heard Mr. Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Mrs. Naveen Merchant learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Zaki Ahmed learned Deputy Attorney‑General on behalf of Federal Government and Mr. Akhtar Hussain learned "counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel' appearing on behalf of petitioner that the present F.I.Rs. have been registered against the petitioner malafidely. Apart from the F.I.Rs. assailed by these petitions, the respondents have registered 21 more F.I.Rs. against the petitioner containing similar allegations. The adjudication proceedings are also pending before the concerned authorities therefore, investigation cannot be conducted by the respondents on the basis of F.I.R. Moreover' the cases relate to misdeclaration therefore, the F.I.Rs. may be quashed and respondents be restrained from conducting investigation. It is contended by Mr. Akhtar Hussain learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that neither the F.I.R. could be quashed during investigation nor this Court can prevent investigating agency from conducting the investigation. He further contended that the petitioner is fugitive from law as he is not participating in the investigation of alleged crimes. The present cases relate to non -declaration and not misdeclaration, moreover the High Court cannot weight or assess the facts in Constitutional jurisdiction. Mr. S. Zaki Muhammad, learned Deputy Attorney‑General has adopted the arguments of Mr. Akhtar Hussain Advocate. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties and perused the material placed on record. The first and foremost point for consideration is whether F.I.R. could be quashed during the course of investigation of a cognizable offence and investigating agency could be stopped from conducting investigation? In order to arrive at just decision on the point stated herein above relevant observations of this Court in the case of Rana Muhammad Farooque v. Aftab Hussain reported in PLD 2003 Karachi 309 are reproduced herein-below:‑‑ "The section 154, Cr.P.C. lays down that Incharge of a Police Station upon receipt of information relating to commission of a cognizable offence orally or in writing is required to incorporate the same in a prescribed book and section 156, Cr.P.C. postulates that the officer incharge of police station may without the order of the Magistrate investigate any cognizable offence. Thus it is crystal clear that the investigation can commence after the registration of F.I.R. The object of investigation is collection of evidence. In the cases of Shahnaz Begum v. Hon'ble Judges of High Court of Sindh and Balochistan reported in PLD 1971 SC 677; Shoukat Ali Dogar and others v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others reported in .PLD 1994 SC 281; Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan and others reported in 1994 SCMR 2142 and Ahmed Saleem v. Muhammad Amin reported in 1998 PCr.LJ 170, it has been held that High Court has no power to interfere with police investigation and assume the role of investigator. It is further held in the case of Shehnaz Begum (supra) as well as in Ahmed Saleem (supra) that the High Court has no power of supervision or control over investigating agencies, which power is vested in it in respect of Courts subordinate to it. The conduct and manner of investigation normally is not to be scrutinized under Constitutional jurisdiction which might amount to interference in police investigation as the same could not be substituted by the Court." The question with regard to alleged mala fides on the part of investigating agency requires factual investigation, which could not be undertaken by the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In this context reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Saeed Azhar v. Martial Law Administrator Punjab and others reported in. 1979 SCMR

484. The next contention that adjudication proceedings are pending before concerned authorities, therefore, investigation cannot be conducted is not tenable in law. In the case of Adam v. Collector of Customs reported in PLD 1969 SC 446 it was held by a Full Bench of apex Court that adjudication proceedings under the Act neither involve a criminal prosecution nor a punishment for an offence. No trial of the offender takes place for any offence, nor is any punishment awarded to the offender. Thus the two proceedings are not interdependent proceedings and neither can remain suspended for the sake of the other. So far the point of "misdeclaration" or "non‑declaration" is concerned it relates to factual controversy. It is not the function of High Court to decide factual controversies in Constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently we are of the considered view that the quashment of F.I.R. tantamounts to throttling the investigation, which is not permissible in law. Resultantly the petitions are misconceived and stand dismissed in limine alongwith pending applications. H.B.T./A‑53/K Petitions dismissed.