C.M. No, 2 of 2010.
' SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.---Dispensation sought for is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions. Disposed of.
Writ Petition No,23150 of 2010.
2. Through this writ, Ameer Abdullah Khan, Habib Ullah Khan and Ehsan Ullah Khan/petitioners/accused have sought quashment of F.I.R. No,543 of 2009, dated 18-11-2009 under section 365, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Mianwali District Mianwali.
3. Brief facts of the case according to the writ petition are that on 26-9-2009 Muhammad Altaf Khan/respondent No,4 moved an application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge Mianwali for recovery of his brother Mehboob Hussain being in illegal confinement of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 since 5-9-2009. He also prayed for registration of criminal case against them. Learned Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge Mianwali called for the report from the S.H.O. Police Station City Mianwali/respondent No,3 which was submitted on 7-10-2009 with the finding that Mehboob Husain/detenue has not been abducted by petitioners Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No,4 complainant has not been able to prove the allegation of abduction against them. It was requested that application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. Of respondent No,4/complainant be consigned to the record. However, learned Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge Mianwali vide his order dated 17-10-2009 passed the following order: "04. The contents of the instant petition prima facie reveals the commission of a cognizable offence and the petitioner is directed to appear before the S.H.O. Who shall record his statement and would act strictly in accordance with law. The application stands decided in above terms. Be consigned."
' In compliance with the aforesaid order, the S.H.O. Police Station City Mianwali/respondent No,3 registered case F.I.R. No, 543 of 2009 dated 18-11-2009 under section 365, P.P.C. Against petitioners Case cancelled by police---Re-investigation into same offence yet not barred."
' According to 'Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others v. Superintendent of Police and 3 others' PLJ 1994 Lahore 431. "There is plethora of case law available on this point that number of investigations into crime by the police is not limited. The police can reinvestigate the case either on the same facts or on procuring of fresh material. The order of discharge is in the nature of an administrative order which can be revoked or recalled by the Magistrate as and when justified under the law.
' In 'Muhammad Sharif and 8 others v. The State and another' 1998 SCMR 304 [Appellate Jurisdiction], it has been laid down, "Interference of High Court with order of Police investigation before submitting challan---This course has been disapproved by Supreme Court."
' In 'Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others' 2006 SCM R 276, it has been held that "If, prima facie, an offence had been committed, ordinary course of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Party seeking the quashing of F.I.R. Had alternate remedy to raise objection at the time of framing the charge against them by the trial Court or at the time of final disposal of trial after recording the evidence. Said party had more than one alternate remedies before the trial Court under sections 265-K and 249- A, Cr.P.C. Or to approach the concerned Magistrate for cancellation of case under the provisions of Cr.P.C.----Trichotomy of Powers which is delicately balanced in the Constitution, cannot be disturbed as it grants powers to each organ to decide the matters in its allotted sphere."
' In 'Dr. Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and others' 2008 SCM R 76, it has been laid down 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 powers under Article 199 of the constitution or under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Unless and until very exceptional circumstances existed."
7. The citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not attracted to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. For what has been discussed above, no occasion has been found by me for interference in the matter. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.
C.M. No,1 of 2010.
9. As .The main writ petition has been dismissed by this court in limine today, therefore, the present miscellaneous petition seeking interim relief has lost its relevance. Dismissed.