' Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No.44 dated 26-3-2005 registered under sections 353/186/148/149, P.P.C. On the complaint of Muhammad Ashraf respondent No.2 at Police Station Karor District, Leiah.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Muhammad Ashraf Khan Girdawar Halqa Karor Nashaib/respondent No.2 got registered the said F.I.R. Against the petitioner his brother Muhammad Mushtaq, Sami Ullah Khan and others with the allegation that on 26-3-2005, he (complainant) along with Muhammad Ishaque Patwari reached at Mauza Daphi Makori to restore the passage in compliance of the order of the Deputy District Officer Revenue Karor. When, they reached there, Muhammad Ishaque Khan petitioner, Muhammad Mushtaq, Sami Ullah along with Manzoor Ahmad, Fida and Siddique armed with pistol came there. They used filthy language and interfered into the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said F.I.R. Was registered at the instance of Local MNA as actually no occurrence had taken place, that respondent No.2 had prepared a report on the same day i.e. 26-3-2005, wherein it was stated that without any resistance the passage in dispute was restored and, therefore, the said report negates the allegation levelled in the said F.I.R., which is liable to be quashed only on the basis of this fact and that Halqa Patwari had not entered another report dated 26-3-2005 of the Girdawar in the Roznamcha Waqiati.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Muhammad Ashraf Khan Girdawar has supported the said F.I.R. And opposed the petition on the ground that when he along with Patwari Halqa reached at the spot tot-restoration of the passage in dispute so many persons including the petitioner Muhammad Ishaque were present there who interfered in the proceedings upon which the impugned F.I.R. Was got registered and that under para 3.81 of the Land Record Manual, it was not necessary for the Patwari to make an entry about the occurrence in the Roznamcha Waqiati. The learned A.A.-G. Has not opposed the writ petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner counsel for the respondent and the learned A.A.- G. And also perused the record.
6. The report of Girdawar dated 26-3-2005 is on the file as Annexure-C. The Girdawar/respondent No.2 does not controvert the said report which is also signed by the opposite party of the petitioner.
It reveals from the said report that when he along with Patwari Halqa reached at the spot for the restoration of the passage in dispute, so many persons including Muhanunad Ishaque Khan petitioner were present but they had left the place before proceedings. The said report clearly speaks about mala fide on the part of the complainant and negates the allegation levelled against the petitioner's side. It becomes crystal clear that no resistance was made by the petitioner during the whole proceedings which was conducted peacefully but later on, the Girdawar in connivance with opposite party of the petitioner lodged a false case just to pressurize and humiliate them.
7. There are some grounds on which a criminal case can be quashed by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction which are as under:--
(a) When the case is of no evidence;
(b) when the very registration, of the case is proved to be mala fide on the faced of record;
(c) when the case is of purely civil nature, criminal proceedings are not warranted in law especially to harass the accused;
(d) when there is serious jurisdictional defect; and
(e) when there is unexceptional delay in the disposal of the case causing deplorable mental physical and financial torture to the person proceeded against.
' Reliance in this behalf is placed on Ch. Pervez Elahi v. The Federation of Pakistan and others (1995 M LD 615). The first two conditions fully apply to the present case, so the impugned F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed. Moreover, it has been held in "Mirza Naseem Baig v. Muhammad Iaqbal and others (1981 SCM R 315) that High Court has powers to quash the proceedings if it is satisfied from other cogent material that the prosecution was launched for improper motive, merely to harass the accused or that is continuance would be an abuse of process of the Court. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the impugned F.I.R., I am of affirmed view that the same is liable to be quashed.
8. In view of the above circumstances, it is held that the impugned case F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed as registration of the said F.I.R. And its continuation would be abuse of process of law.
Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and case F.I.R. No.44 dated 26-3-2005 registered under sections 353/186/149/506, P.P.C. At Police Station Karor District Leiah is quashed.