2010 PLP 2070 (YLR)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner has prayed for registration of a criminal case against nominated accused in the application filed under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace as well as quashing of F.I.R No.556 of 2006 lodged against the petitioner by Salamat Ali. It has further been prayed that on account of financial hardship, financial loss, business loss, loss of respect and dignity, the said Salamat Ali be burdened with penalty of at least Rs.25,000.

2. The petitioner filed an application under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace wherein it was stated that the petitioner was in possession of house measuring 2 Marlas situated at G.T. Road Muridke. The accused on 2-8-2006 along with some other persons while armed with lethal weapons attacked and demolished the house of the petitioner including the shop of the petitioner's son. A report was sought from the S.H.O. Police Station City Muridke which was submitted on 5-9-2006 which revealed that the dispute between the petitioner and his real brother Muhammad Riaz was regarding partition of property as the petitioner and his brother were co-sharers. It further revealed that litigation was pending between the parties in the said respect. The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace after going through the contents of the application and the report submitted by the police dismissed the application.

3. It has been observed that the main grievance of the petitioner is against Muhammad Riaz his real brother who is admittedly a co-sharer in the disputed property regarding which civil litigation is also pending between the parties. Essentially the dispute between the parties is one of civil nature. Further, the application filed by the petitioner does not prima facie disclose commission of any cognizable offence by the accused. All the contentions belong to the realm of a factual controversy which cannot be resolved by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article

199. Reliance is placed on the cases of Abdul Wahab Khan v. Government of Punjab PLD 1989 SC 508 and Raja Muhammad Ramzan v. Union Council Bainail and others 1994 SCMR

484. Even otherwise, the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available to him by way of filing a private complaint against the accused. Reference in the said regard is made to the case of Khizar Hayat v. The State 2005 Lahore 470.

4. Insofar as quashing of the F.I.R. is concerned, prima facie the petitioner appears to be involved in the crime alleged against him which is evident from the contents of the F.I.R. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless or without any substance. Quashing of the F.I.R. at this stage would amount to stifling the prosecution. Further, the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276 has deprecated the quashing of F.I.R. by the High Court as it amounts to short circuiting the normal procedure of law as provided under, Cr.P.C. and Police Rules. It has been further observed in the judgment that the accused has more than one alternate remedies available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Police Rules.

5. The third prayer made by the petitioner for the grant of penalty in the sum of Rs.25,000 is totally misconceived as the same can only be determined/decided by the Civil Court after recording evidence of the parties. Once again it entails resolution of controversial question of fact.

6. For what has been stated above, the petition has no force which stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-184/L Petition dismissed.