ATTAULLAH KHAN, J. Through this quashment petition filed under section 561-A Cr.P.C, the petitioners have sought the quashment of F.I.R. No,11 dated 12-1-2011 under sections 382/506/ 148/149, P.P.C. registered against them at Police Station Ghazni Khel, Tehsil and District Lakki Marwat, vide order dated 10-1-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Lakki Marwat.
2. Facts of the case leading to this quashment petition in brief are that on the application of the respondent filed under section 22(A)(6), Cr.P.C., the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Lakki Marwat in his capacity as Justice of Peace has directed the registration of case against the petitioners through the impugned order, which is now under challenge by the petitioners through the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the case has falsely been registered against the petitioners on the application submitted by the respondent before the learned Justice of Peace which is thus liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the contents of application have fully established that the case is made out of a cognizable nature, therefore, at this stage, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed.
5. I have gone through the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The record reveals that the complainant/respondent submitted an application to the learned Justice of Peace against the petitioners who after hearing the parties ordered the registration of case against the petitioners through the impugned order. The contents of the said application of the complainant contains certain allegations which reveals a prima facie case of cognizable nature and thus its registration was accordingly ordered, where after the case was registered and investigation started.
7. Generally, the proceedings can be quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. only in cases which either do not disclose the commission of any offence or the offence that the prosecution cannot result in conviction of the accused. But in case where the prosecution case is based on the evidence disclosing the commission of offence, then it is the right of prosecution to get an opportunity for proving the allegations. In such like circumstances, the High Court should not interfere as it would amount to interruption the ordinary course of law in criminal proceedings. I may rely upon 2004 SCM R 1892.
8. Moreover, the High Court can only quash criminal cases when the case is of no evidence or the registration of case is proved to be mala fide, or the case is of civil nature, or there is serious jurisdictional defect or where there is unreasonable delay in the disposal of case. None of these grounds is available in this case. The investigation is in progress and it is yet to be seen whether the evidence is deficient. At the moment, no mala fide has been established on the part of the complainant for registration of case. If this Court quash the F.I.R. at this moment, it would amount to taking over the function of investigation agency which is neither permissible under the law nor would be in the interest of justice.
9. The petitioners should face the proceedings initiated by the prosecution Agency. At any stage if they find that evidence is lacking and discover any other reason entitling them for acquittal or discharge, they may move the police or the Court, as the case may be. But at this initial stage, it is not proper and in the interest of justice to interfere with the investigation being carried out by the relevant Agency.
10. Consequently, I find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.