1995 P Cr (PLP)

MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.

This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the order, dated 14-12-1994 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed Writ Petition No.5927 of 1994 seeking cancellation of the case F.I.R. No.282, dated 26-11-1994 for the offence under sections 353, 186, 506 and 332, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Qureshi, District Muzaffargarh.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Doctor Sadiq Mahmood Suhrani respondent No.8 herein, lodged the aforesaid F.I.R., which was to the effect that he was Incharge Rural Health Centre Basira, District Muzaffargarh. On 26-11-1994 when he was present in his office, Abdul Rehman Radiographer of the same hospital, alongwith his father and brother, entered into his office and exhorted that they would teach him a lesson for initiating the proceedings against Abdul Rehman. They caused him many injuries with their fist blows. He was rescued by the witnesses present therein. When they left the office, they warned him that if he took some action against them, he will be done away with.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that he will confine his arguments to his plea meant for quashment of the F.I.R. no and will not press other reliefs either mentioned in the writ petition or reiterated in this appeal. He contends that even from the perusal of the F.I.R., no cognizable offence was made out. In this respect, he specifically referred to section 506, P.P.C. Section 503, P.P.C., which defines the criminal intimidation, is as follows:-- "Criminal intimidation.

Whoever threatens another with an injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation." Assuming the facts correctly stated in the F.I.R., it appears that the appellants not only criminally intimidated respondent No.8; they also used the criminal force to deter him from discharging his duty.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that the case against the appellants was registered mala fide. This plea is not discernible from the record itself. Therefore, it cuts no ice. In order to determine the correctness or otherwise of this plea, the Court will have to dilate upon the controversial facts, which, we are of the, opinion, were beyond the limited scope of the writ jurisdiction. Reliance in this respect can be placed on Muhammad Saeed Azhar v. Martial Law Administrator, Punjab and others 1979 SCMR 484, wherein it was observed that:-- "Question of alleged mala fides on part of local police requires factual investigation. Factual investigation could not be undertaken by High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction."

5. It is pertinent to note here, that respondent No.8 was medically examined on 26-11-1994. One of the injuries found on his person was subsequently declared grievous vide report, dated 7-12-1994. It will be for the trial Court to determine whether this injury was in fact grievous or not. In view of the above, we hold that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, exercised his discretion properly. This appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./A-815/L Appeal dismissed.