' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of case F.I.R. No,211, dated 12-9-2004 for offence under section 380, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Lalian, District Jhang.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Khurram Shahzad (brother-in-law of the complainant) and Muhammad Nazeer petitioner (father-in-law of the complainant) stayed overnight at the house of the complainant. In the morning when the complainant woke up, he found that the petitioner and Khurram Shahzad were not on their beds. The door of the Baithak was open and on checking he discovered that jewelry weighing 8 Tola valued at Rs,72,000 and clothes were missing from the cupboard. On inquiry, Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Akram informed him that the petitioner and his co-accused Khurram Shahzad while carrying two bags in their hands were seen going in a car with two unknown persons towards the Bus Stand. On suspicion that the said two persons had committed theft in the house of the complainant, he along with the witnesses went to their house and confronted them with the situation, whereupon they agreed to return the items stolen from the house of the complainant. However, since the return of the stolen articles was being delayed by the accused on one pretext or the other, the petitioner had no option but to file the aforementioned F.I.R.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and that the impugned F.I.R. Is false, frivolous and is result of mala fides and ulterior motives of the complainant and the police. Further submits that the daughter of the petitioner and sister of Khurram Shahzad namely Saima Naurin was married with the complainant who did not treat her properly and subsequently expelled her from his house along with her minor daughter Afshan and since then she was residing with the petitioner and the complainant nourished a grudge against the petitioner and his son on account thereof. That Mst. Saima Naurin filed a suit against the complainant regarding Dissolution of Marriage, Recovery of Maintenance Allowance and Recovery of Dowry Articles in the Family Court at Sargodha which was pending and which had further created resentment between the parties. And lastly maintains that the registration of F.I.R. Was on account of mala fides, hence the same merits to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,4, the complainant, contends that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and his son in the F.I.R. Of the theft of jewelry and other articles, which fact was fully supported by the eyewitnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Who had got their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Before the Investigating Officer. Further submits that the petitioner has neither joined the investigation nor has he appeared before this Court after a direction was given by the Court on 24-9-2004 to the effect that the petitioner should not be arrested till further orders, hence the petitioner has misused the concession granted by this Court and on this score alone the petition merits to be dismissed. He lastly submits that on account of the pendency of the instant Writ Petition, the investigation is pending which has not been completed by the Investigating Officer.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. A direction was issued by this Court on 24-9-2004 to the effect that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the case till further orders. The case was fixed on a number of occasions thereafter but apparently the petitioner failed to appear before this Court. The same state of affairs prevails even today, as the petitioner is absent from the Court, thus the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner has misused the concession granted by this Court carries weight.
Further the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And serious allegations have been levelled against him, which is supported by the statements made by the eye-witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Before the investigating officer. The record reveals that the petitioner has not joined the investigation, as a consequence of which the investigation has not been completed despite a lapse of about two years.
7. It is clear from the facts of the case that the circumstances spell out commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner and his co-accused. Since the investigation in the case has not been completed, as such this Court cannot control or interfere in the same, as the investigation is the sole prerogative of the Investigating Agency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has deprecated the interference of the High Court in the process of investigation in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Prima facie, the facts of the case do not disclose that the allegations levelled by respondent No,4 in the F.I.R. Are baseless or motivated out of malice. Reliance is placed on the cases of Brg. Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior Division, Islamabad (1994 SCM R 2142) and Shahnaz Begum v. Hon'ble Judges of the Sindh and Balochistan High Courts (1971 SC 677). Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCM R 276) has held that quashment of F.I.R. Would amount to short-circuiting the normal procedure of law as provided under Code of Criminal Procedure and the Police Rules and that the accused has more than one alternate remedy available to him under the law.
8. For what has been discussed above, the petition being without any merit is dismissed and the quashment of F.I.R. No,21] , dated 12-9-2004 for offence under section 380, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Lalian, District Jhang, is declined. There shall be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.