ORDER This Intra-court appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chambers of this Court dated 9-8-2011, passed in Writ Petition No.3143 of 2011/BWP, whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed.
2. Precise facts leading to this appeal are that Ahsan Mahmood and Muhammad Asif respondents'
Nos.7 and 8/Government Contractors along with others are accused of case F.I.R. No.30 of 2011, dated 20-5-2011, under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, police station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Bahawalpur, lodged on the complaint dated 2-4-2011 made by District Coordination Officer Bahawalpur for causing heavy loss to State Exchequer as contractor during the execution of work regarding dual carriage way of road from Sir Sadiq Muhammad Khan Road to General Bus Stand Via Milad Chowk, Bahawalpur (length 0.58 K.M.)
3. Feeling aggrieved respondents Nos.7 and 8 Ahsan Mehmood and Muhammad Asif invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 through above noted writ petition for quashing of the F.I,R. On the grounds that they have been falsely implicated with malice; that actually work has been executed according to the agreement and work order without any default; that the road in question was also examined by NESPAK and found that no evidence of any road distress like rutting/cracks/ bleeding etc. Was seen; that inquiry reports of the Technical Team of Anti-Corruption Establishment Bahawalpur are not based on true facts rather are ontradictory to their on report prepared by the Anti-Corruption Establishment Authorities in January, M10; that F.I.R.
Is registered against them without providing opportunity of hearing and 'without perusing the reports regarding construction of the road.
4. Conversely, learned Assistant Advocate-General has argued that writ petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. Is not maintainable as number of efficacious remedies are available to the aggrieved petitioners; that the alleged report of NESPAK procured privately by the petitioners cannot be safely relied upon; that the work done - by the petitioners/ contractors was checked by the technical team of Anti-Corruption Establishment and was found substandard requiring an estimated amount of more than Rs.30,000,000 for removing the defects in the work done by the petitioners with the collusion of some Government Servants for causing heavy financial loss to the. State Exchequer; that number of co-accused of the petitioners are Government Servants who have not yet sought quashing of F.I.R.; that the writ petition is lodged with mala fide intention. He also took reliance upon Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCM R 276).
5. Learned Single Judge in Chambers after hearing arguments of learned counsel for present respondents Nos.7 and 8 as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General dismissed the writ petition with a direction to the Investigation Officer that in case petitioners (present respondents Nos.7 and 8) join the investigation he shall record their version and will also receive their oral as well as documentary evidence which they may offer before him in their defence.
6. Although appellant/a co-accused was not a party in the above referred writ petition, however, being dissatisfied' with the dismissal of the writ petition through the impugned order dated 9-8- 2011 has assailed it through this Intra-Court Appeal almost on the same grounds raised in the writ petition by respondents Nos.7 and 8.
7. We have given patient hearing to the learned counsel for the appellant and also carefully gone through the record with their assistance.
8. Above noted grounds and arguments agitated by learned counsel for the appellant for quashing of F.I.R. Are purely based on disputed question of fact. It has been squarely settled that quashing of the F.I.R. By appreciating the documents produced by the parties would amount to bypass the normal procedure of law prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code 1898. Certainly, an accused cannot be allowed to avoid ordinary course of trial before the Court of competent jurisdiction, if prima facie the offence is --made out against him, by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Quashing of F.I.R. During the investigation amounts to throttling the investigation process, which is not permissible in law, therefore, learned Single Judge in Chambers has rightly dismissed the writ petition with a direction to the Investigating Officer to record the version of petitioners (present respondents Nos.7 and 8) and also to receive their oral and documentary evidence which they may offer before him in their defence while joining the investigation. Impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.
9. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, we are of the considered view that the appellant has neither any locus standi nor he could make out any case to review the impugned order dated 9-8- 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers of this Court. This I.0.A. There are, dismissed in limine..