Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, J.--Through this appeal by leave of the Court, appellant who is complainant in the case registered vide FIR No, 129 dated 12.3.2009 under Section 489-F PPC at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad, has challenged the judgment of the learned High Court dated 27.7.2009 vide which the afore-referred FIR was quashed inter alia on the ground as follows:-- "The complainant while lodging the FIR concealed the aforementioned facts that in-fact he has received an amount of Rs, 12,20,000/ - from the petitioner and there was a dispute of payment of the remaining amount of Rs, 11,80,000/-- only but he lodged the FIR to the tune of Rs, 24,00,000/- without disclosing the fact that he has already received actual amount advanced by him along with an amount of Rs, 2,20,000/-. This fact speaks about the malafide on the part of the complainant. The complainant has not lodged the FIR in-question with clean hands. Instead of filing a suit for recovery / rendition of accounts, he opted to lodge a criminal case against the petitioner u/S. 489-F, PPC."
2. Leave was granted by this Court vide the order dated 7.1.2000 on the grounds as follows:-- "Learned counsel, inter alia, contends that while deciding the application for quashment of proceedings arising out of crime No, 129 dated 12.3.2009, Police Station, Shalimar, Islamabad, learned Single Judge in Chambers of the High Court has traveled much beyond the limited scope of this provision of law. He further contends that issuance of dishonoured cheque in the sum of Rs, 24,00,000/- by Respondent No, 1 was an admitted position, therefore, for extraneous consideration, quashment of proceedings in the case was not justified. Leave to appeal is granted to examine the above aspect of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that quashment of FIR in Constitutional jurisdiction is not tenable in law; that the learned High Court has quashed the FIR inter alia on the grounds of mala fides which is a question of fact and entailed inquiry, which exercise could only be undertaken by the concerned Investigating Officer and that the judgment is violative of the law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Mansha Vs. Station House Officer (PLD 2006 SC 598) & Col. Shah Siddique Vs. Muhammad Ashiq (2006 SCM R 276).
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No, 1 submits that the respondent does not deny having given a blank cheque but the same was merely a guarantee as appellant and respondent had a joint business; that respondent had already paid a sum of Rs, 12,20,000/- whereas the amount subject matter of the FIR is Rs, 24,00,000/-; that the Respondent Never owed this amount to the appellant; that even otherwise, the issue of rendition of amounts between the parties has been brought in the criminal domain by having the case registered; that appellant has already filed a suit qua his claim under Order XXXVII CPC and respondent has also filed a suit for cancellation of the cheque subject matter of the FIR and in the interest of justice, let Civil Court decide the issues raised.
5. The allegations levelled in the case registered vide FIR No, 129 dated 12.3.2009 under Section 489- F PPC at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad, which has been quashed by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment, briefly stated were that Respondent No, .1 borrowed .a sum of Rs, 24,00,000/- from the appellant; that to repay the loan, he issued a cheque of the said amount which was dishonored and hence he was guilty of having committed an offence under the law. The learned High Court quashed the proceedings at the investigation stage merely on the basis of the plea raised by the accused before the Investigating Officer could conclude the investigation.
6. There is no cavil to the proposition that the High Court in exercise, of powers even under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. can quash the criminal proceedings even at initial stage if it is of, the view that if the allegations levelled in the FIR or the complaint, if un-rebutted, no criminal case was made out. The Court may also take into consideration any special circumstance to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the prosecution should be allowed to proceed with the case in the interest of justice or that there were no possibility of conviction of the accused or that the admitted facts make out a case of civil nature or that the malicious prosecution is floating on the record and that no useful purpose would be served in permitting the criminal proceedings to continue. However, the learned High Court in its power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. will ordinarily not interfere with the police investigation in a cognizable offence. The parameters of Court's jurisdiction were dilated upon as early as Khawaja Nazir Ahmad's case (AIR 1945 PC p. 18) wherein it was held:-- "The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, to give direction in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then."
7. In Hazari Lal Vs. Rameshwar Prasad (AIR 1972 SC 484), the parameters of this jurisdiction of the High Court were commented upon and it was held:-- "The inherent power of the High Court under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code has been considered by this Court in R.P. Kapur V. State of Punjab, (1960) 3 SCMR 388 = (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of West Bengal v. S. N. Basak (1963) 2 SCMR 52 = (AIR 1963 SC 447). In exercising jurisdiction under S. 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court can quash proceedings if there is no legal evidence or if there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings but the High Court does not ordinarily enquire as to whether the evidence is 'reliable or non". Where again, investigation into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then be impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court was correct in dismissing the applications under Section 561-A of the 'Criminal Procedure Code. The appeals are therefore dismissed."'
8. Reiterating the afore-referred ratio, this Court in Shah Sadiq Vs. Muhammad Ashiq (2006 SCM R 276 at page 285) held as follows:-- "20. It is pertinent to mention here that established practice before the creation of country was that learned High Courts were very reluctant to quash the proceedings under constitutional jurisdiction.
The object and reason behind this practice was that the High Courts had to quash the proceedings summarily which would create chaos due to the following reasons: (i)All the procedure and authorities prescribed under Cr.P.C. would become redundant.
(ii)To interfere in the sphere allotted to the executive organ.
(iii)There is every likelihood of injustice in a summary disposal.
(iv)The cases are quashed at initial stages then it would create law and order situation as the people may resort to taking revenge from the opposite party.
(v)Deviation from the past practice is always dangerous.
(vi)Superior Courts always keep judicial restraint in view of Article 4 of the Constitution read with Article 5(2) of the Constitution."
9. Again in Muhammad Mansha Vs. Station House Officer (PLD 2006 SC 598) this Court concluded as follows:-- "This Court has been repeatedly reminding all concerned that determination of the correctness or falsity of the allegations levelled against an accused person; the consequent determination of the guilt or innocence of such an accused person and the ultimate conclusion regarding his conviction or acquittal, was an obligation cast on the Court prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose on the basis of legal evidence led at the trial after a proper opportunity to both the parties to plead their causes. It is a principle too well-established by now that a resort to the provisions of Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. or to the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution seeking quashment of a criminal case was an extraordinary remedy which could be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances and the said provisions could never be exploited as a substitute for the prescribed trial or to decide the question of guilt or innocence of an accused person on the basis of material which was not admissible in terms of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order of 1984."
10.The Court has been consistent in its view so far as the powers of the High Court for quashment of the criminal case either under Article 199 of the Constitution or under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. are concerned. This view was once again reiterated in Ghulam Mustafa vs. State (2008 SCM R 76) wherein at page 78, the Court observed:-- "The Courts have right to interpret the law and the High Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to take the role of the Investigating Agency. There are several pronouncements of this Court that learned High Court has no jurisdiction to quash the F.I.Rs, while exercising constitutional power under Article 199 of the Constitution or Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. unless and until there are very exceptional circumstances existed."
11.Coming to the facts of the instant case, admittedly the investigation of the criminal case, subject matter of this appeal, was still in progress, parties had taken divergent pleas and a bare reading of the FIR would indicate that the allegations levelled therein ex-facie made out a criminal offence under which the case stood registered. Learned counsel for the respondent has not alluded to any circumstance or any piece of evidence, which could warrant quashment of the case by invoking provision under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Respectfully reiterating the earlier view taken by this Court in the precedent case law to which reference has been made in the preceding paragraphs, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Inspector General of Police, Islamabad is directed to entrust the investigation to an upright Police Officer of his own choice, who shall investigate the case strictly on merits by giving specific findings on the pleas raised by the parties.