1. ' The petitioner through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeks quashment of F.I.R. No, 60, dated 19-2-2004 registered under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. At Police Station Mirpur, Abbottabad.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that Mst. Bibi Fatima (respondent No,4), the complainant in the F.I.R.
3. Submitted written report to the S.S.P. Abbottabad wherein she reported that she was a citizen of United Kingdom and visited Pakistan on 1st July, 2003 and reached to Abbottabad at the residence of her brother. During her stay at Abbottabad, she was looking for some property to purchase for herself. In the meanwhile, she met Faiz Muhammad Qadri (petitioner), the accused in the F.I.R. Who offered to buy property for her, whereafter she paid Rs,12,00,000 to him through cross-cheques. The accused had neither purchased the property nor returned the said amount of Rs,12,00,000 to her.
4. The accused, despite repeated demands, did not return the money. The complainant requested the police to register a case of fraud against the accused and that Rs,12,00,000 be recovered from him and the same be returned to her. The F.I.R. In question, on this written report, was registered against the petitioner.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. Are totally baseless. The petitioner had never received any cross-cheque(s) from the respondent. The cross- cheques, if any, issued by the respondent were in the name of Sabir Hussain Shah, the photo copies of which are annexed at pages 78 and 79 of the petition (four cheques and one telegraphic transfer order). These cheques were credited in PLS Account No,149 of Sabir Hussain Shah in the Allied Bank of Pakistan. The statements of accounts showing credit of respondent's cheques in the said account are at pages 81 and 82 of the petition.
6. ' On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that besides the cross- cheques mentioned in the F.I.R., the respondent in her police statement, dated 7-2-2004 had also alleged that she had paid the cash amount of Rs,6,50,000 to the petitioner in the presence of Mussawar Hussain and Muhammad Shoaib, whose statements were also recorded by the police on the same day.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record with their able assistance.
8. 'It transpires from the record that the respondent submitted written complaint to the S.S.P., Abbottabad on 6-2-2004, recorded her supplementary statements with the police with her two afore-named close relatives on 7-2-2004 and registered the F.I.R. Against the petitioner on 19-2- 2004. The supplementary statements were recorded much before the reference of application by the S.S.P. To the police for investigation and registration of the F.I.R. The facts mentioned in the application submitted to the S.S.P. Were different than the facts disclosed after a day by the respondent and her witnesses in their statements to the police. The record reveals that four cheques and one telegraphictransfer order were issued by the respondent from time to time either in the name of SELF or in the name of Sabir Hussain Shah that all were credited to his PLS Account No,149 in Allied Bank of Pakistan where the same were withdrawn. Not a single cross-cheque was ever issued by the respondent in the name of petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the photocopies of the cross-cheques and the statements of accounts of Sabir Hussain Shah, when confronted with in Court.
9. ' This Court has minutely gone through the police as well as the judicial files to ascertain evidence, if any, on the record to connect the petitioner either directly or indirectly with the allegations contained in the F.I.R. The Court finds that except a letter, dated 7-2-2004, which the ASHO, Police Station, Mirpur had sent to the Manager, National Bank of Pakistan inquiring about the person, who had credited the disputed cheques and had withdrawn its amount and the prompt response of the Bank Manager namely, Mr. S. Munawar Hussain Shah on the same day that one cheque was enchased on the cash counter on 23-8-2003 and the proceeds of remaining three cheques were credited in to A/C No,149 of Sabir Hussain Shah, no other inquiry letter or remotest possible evidence is available on files to support the allegations against the petitioner.
10. ' As is evident from the record that the F.I.R. Was registered at the behest of respondent. The F.I.R.
11. Has not only contradicted the supplementary statements of respondent but also the inquiry conducted by the ASHO before its registration. The ASHO had increased the alleged amount of Rs,12,00,000 Rs,19,00,000 without any evidence same police officer had tampered documents on police and judicial files by adding the name of petitioner with different pen, different ink and different handwriting. The respondent in her own hand written complaint had alleged that Rs,12,00,000 was given to the petitioner through cross-cheques whereas all the cheques placed on the record speak to the contrary. All the cheques are payee's account only in the name of Sabir Hussain Shah. The proceeds of cheques were collected in the personal account of Sabir Hussain Shah and there is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the petitioner had received any amount out of the cheques amount or telegraphic transfer order. The police besides arrest, had resorted to physical beating and torture but could not recover any amount from the petitioner.
12. There is nothing on record either oral or documentary evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged payment of Rs,12,00,000. The =la fide of police and their collusion with respondent is visible on the face of the record. Despite police manipulation, no one can spell out petitioner's involvement in the case and thus the case registered against him is totally false, fabricated and with intent to launch malicious prosecution.
13. ' Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Confers upon the High Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. These powers are very wide and can be exercised by the High Court at any time. There is no bar and the bar, if any is not absolute on the exercise of these powers. This Court in exceptional cases may quash the F.I.R. And rescue a citizen victim of undue harassment, misuse of power and high- handedness of the police.
14. ' The duty of the police is to investigate the complaint and to see whether any offence has been committed or not. The investigation reveals that on facts alleged no case has been made out against the petitioner but the police, in abuse of its power registered the F.I.R. Which prima-facie appears to be based on collusion and fraud.
15. ' The actions of the police officer in no case is sacrosanct so as to exclude from judicial scrutiny.
16. The Court cannot give free hand to the police to play havoc with the life, honour and liberty of citizen and to use it as a lever to commit atrocities on the innocent citizens under the garb of investigation. The jurisdiction of the Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan would become redundant and citizen would be left at the mercy of the police which is not the purpose of law; "Gulnaz v State" (1996 PCr.IJ 486). No restrain on the basis of mere procedural technicalities could be placed on Courts to exercise its inherent powers, where justifiable circumstances require for interference to prevent abuse of process of law, otherwise the very concept of complete justice inherent in our Constitution would crumble.
17. ' The august Supreme Court in "Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others" (2000 SCM R 122) has already ruled that the "High Court in exceptional cases, can exercise jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
18. Without waiting for trial Court to pass orders under section 249-A or section 265-K, Cr.P.C., if the facts of the case so warrant. The main consideration to be kept in view would be, whether the continuance of the proceedings before the trial Court forum would be futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of Court or not. If on the basis of facts admitted and patent on record no offence can be made out, then it would amount to abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue with the triar.
19. ' For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the firm view that the facts as found and patent on the record, no offence can be made out against the petitioner and the very existence of the F.I.R. Without any legal justification constitutes abuse of the legal process. The petition is allowed and F.I.R. No,60, dated 19-2-2004 under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C., Police Station, Mirpur is hereby quashed.
20. F.I.R. Quashed.