1. SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed that F.I.R. No, 236, dated 3-8-2003, registered in Police Station, Sukheke, under sections 430/427/186/506, P.P.C. may be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed for staying the proceedings being conducted in furtherance to the registration of the impugned F.I.R.
2. The necessary facts for proper adjudication of the lis in hand are that respondent No,3 who is posted in his native town nourished a grudge against the petitioner as he had filed Writ Petition No, 13418 of 1997 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore against respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in addition to submitting complaints before the competent authority regarding interference in the supply of water to his agricultural land from Moga No, 17573 (L), Mochiwala. The petitioner contended that respondent No, 3 stopped the passage of his cattle on public Highway/ road adjacent to Canal Rukh Branch leading to the agricultural land of the petitioner whereupon the petitioner submitted an application to SHO, Police Station, Sukheke/respondent No,1 against respondent No,3, who did not take any action. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,10755 of 2003 in this Court, wherein an order was passed on 30-7-2003 for conducting an enquiry into the allegations made by the present petitioner against respondent No,3. The petitioner claimed that respondent No,3 as a counterblast got a false criminal case registered against him, vide F.I.R. No, 236, dated 3-8-2003, under sections 430/427/186/506, P.P.C., in Police Station, Sukheke, without any basis. He contended that the occurrence allegedly took place on 9-7-2003, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 3-8-2003 without any plausible explanation. The petitioner asserted that registration of the impugned F.I.R.
2. No, 236 is an abuse of the process of law, particularly when the same has been registered after the passing of an order of enquiry against respondent No,3 by Lahore High Court, Lahore. Hence, this petition invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of F.I.R. No, 236, dated 3- 8-2003.
3. 3.Respondent No,1 filed his report and parawise comments wherein he submitted that F.I.R. No,236, dated 3-8-2003, under sections 430/427/186/506, P.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner, on the complaint of Muhammad Arshad Bhatti, Sub-Engineer, which is under investigation.
4. Respondent No,1 contended that the investigation of the impugned F.I.R. would be finalized purely on merits without any fear, favour or nepotism. Respondent No,1 denied the submission of any application to him by the petitioner for entering Rapat Pesh Bandi' against respondent No,3.
5. Respondent No,1 also denied the knowledge of any enquiry proceedings being conducted against the complainant of the impugned F.I.R.
6. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that registration of the impugned F.I.R. as well as the investigation being conducted thereon are the abuse of the process of law as the said F.I.R. was lodged with mala fide intention by the complainant. He further submitted that no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. was committed by the present petitioner.
7. 5.Conversely, the learned Additional A.-G. as well as the learned counsel for respondent No,3 opposed the instant petition, on the ground that not only the investigation has been completed wherein the present petitioner has been found guilty, but also a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction, on 27-7-2004. They further submitted that the charge against the accused of the impugned F.I.R. No, 236 of 2003, dated 3-8-2003 has been framed and evidence of the prosecution could not be recorded due to the pendency of the instant writ petition. Lastly, they argued that the commission of the alleged offence by the present petitioner is a disputed question of fact and the same could only be decided after recording of evidence during the trial. They also argued that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
8. 6.Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. 7.The impugned F.I.R. No, 236 of 2003, dated 3-8-2003 was lodged on the complaint, of Muhammad Irshad Bhatti, Sub-Engineer, Sukheke on behalf of SDO, Sangla Sub-division, wherein it is alleged that Zafarullah/present petitioner and Zakaullah Bhatti advanced threats to the complainant to kill, in addition to using abusive language. The complainant also alleged that the accused have illegally demolished and extended their Moga No, 17573(L), Mochiwala. The accused, including the present petitioner, were also alleged to have wrongfully diverted/stolen the water for agricultural purposes and obstructed the public servants in discharge their official functions. The petitioner claimed that the aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant as an enquiry was being conducted against him in pursuance to an order passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 30-7-2003 in Writ Petition No, 10755 of 2003, filed by the present petitioner. But there are specific allegations against the present petitioner and the co-accused/Zakaullah Bhatti in F.I.R. No, 236 of 2003, which were being investigated at the time when the instant writ petition was filed.
10. Respondent No,I in his report and parawise comments categorically stated that the investigation in the impugned F.I.R. was being conducted purely on merits, without any fear or favour or nepotism.
11. Now, not only the investigation of the aforementioned F.I.R. has been concluded wherein the present petitioner has been found guilty but also a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted on 27-7-2004 in the Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned trial Court has framed the charge against the accused, including the present petitioner and the case is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. The High Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to take the role of the Investigating Agency and to quash the F.I.R. while exercising its constitutional powers under Article 199 of the Constitution unless and until exceptional circumstances exist. In the instant case, prima facie, an offence is alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner and the determination of guilt or innocence of the accused/present petitioner totally depends upon the production of evidence during the trial. Moreover, quashing of F.I.R. during investigation tantamount to throttling investigation, which is not permissible in law. As observed above, trial against the present petitioner is in progress and the best course available to the present petitioner is to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction through an alternate remedy under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The impugned F.I.R. and the proceedings being conducted thereon cannot be quashed at this stage as the same are neither coram non judice nor being conducted in violation of the procedure or amount to abuse of the process of law. Hence, the instant petition is without any substance and legal force and the same is accordingly, dismissed.