After registration of the case, investigation of a case is a statutory right of the police and the Courts are always reluctant in interfering

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 313

Present: Miss Aalia Neelum, J.

ROOBI SHABANA--Petitioner

versus

SHO etc.--Respondents

W.P. No. 63041-Q of 2020, decided on 10.3.2021.

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 &
471--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, S. P.C. 249-A/265-K--Constitutional petition--Jurisdiction--Investigation--Statutory Right--Alternate Remedy--Registration of case--Challenge to--The prosecution has to prove that whether incident has taken in the same manner as stated by the petitioner would necessarily call for holding of a factual inquiry and the said exercise cannot be conducted by this Court in present writ petition through summery proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. After registration of the case, investigation of a case is a statutory right of the police and the Courts are always reluctant in interfering--Petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of filing application under Section 249-A/265-K, Cr.P.C., if challan is submitted before Court of competent jurisdiction--It would be premature to say that allegations are genuine or otherwise, as investigation is still in progress--However, if case after investigation is sent to Court for trial and petitioner is challaned, she can avail remedy before trial Court by filing an application under Section 249-A/265-K, Cr.P.C. for her acquittal--Petition was dismissed.              [Pp. 314 & 315] A, B & C

Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad Dhoon, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mian Shakeel Ahmed, A.A.G for Respondents.

Ch. Peer Muhammad Gujjar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

Date of Hearing: 10.3.2021.

Order

Through the constitutional petition filed in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed that F.I.R Bearing No. 1274 of 2020, dated 25.11.2020, offence under Sections 420/468/471, P.P.C., registered against the petitioner at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad be quashed.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. The questions of facts raised by the petitioner in the instant petition can only be adjudicated by producing the evidence before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the prosecution has to prove that whether incident has taken in the same manner as stated by the petitioner would necessarily call for holding of a factual inquiry and the said exercise cannot be conducted by this Court in present writ petition through summery proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. After registration of the case, investigation of a case is a statutory right of the police and the Courts are always reluctant in interfering with the same, therefore, the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of filing application under Section 249-A/265-K, Cr.P.C., if the challan is submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Apex Court in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq (2006 SCMR 276) after elaborate consideration of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and Police Rules of 1934 held that High Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in the Constitutional jurisdiction and the F.I.R. during the investigation cannot be quashed. In the case of Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon ‘ble Judges of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan and another (PLD 1971 SC 677) a Full Bench of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court cannot interfere in the investigation undertaken by the police and same view is affirmed in the case of Dr.

Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and others (2008 S C M R 76) wherein it has also been held that:

“High Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to take the role of the investigating agency and to quash the F.I.R. while exercising constitutional power under Article 199 of the Constitution or under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. unless and until very exceptional circumstances exists.”

The facts already revealed and stated hereinabove, of course, disclose some private vengeance of both the parties. At this stage, it would be premature to say that the allegations are genuine or otherwise, as the investigation is still in progress. However, if the case after investigation is sent to the Court for trial and the petitioner is challaned, she can avail remedy before the learned trial Court by filing an application under Section 249-A/265-K, Cr.P.C. for her acquittal.

4. For what has been discussed above, this petition . has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.

(MMR)            Petition dismissed