Mian Fasih-ul-Mulk, J.--Petitioner, Gul Yousaf is brother of Wazir Muhammad, who was shot dead on 5.9.2009 and a case vide FIR No. 620 dated 05.09.2009 was registered in Police Station Abdul Hameed Shabqadar by the SHO. The son of deceased namely Sajjadullah on the same date submitted an application to the SHO wherein he charged Respondent No. 1, Amjid Ali for committing the murder of his father. The complainant, Sajjalullah subsequently filed another' application under Section 22-A before the Justice of Peace for lodging an FIR against Respondent No. 1, which was accepted and another FIR vide No. 655 dated 19.09.2009 was registered against Respondent No. 1. On the application of Respondent No. 1, a special investigation team was, constituted, which conducted an inquiry, wherein Jan Muhammad and Sahar Gul were found to be actual perpetrators and Respondent No. 1 was declared innocent. The SHO, in view of above, submitted his final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which, Respondent No. 3 vide impugned order. dated 22.05.2010 stopped further proceedings in the case.
2. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the inquiry report and impugned order of Respondent No. 3 has filed instant petition for declaring the same as null and void, having no consequence and bearing on the fate of the case with direction to Respondent No. 2/SHO to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the available record.
4. Perusal of report submitted by SHO under Section 173 Cr.P.C. read with Section 169 thereof would reveal that discharge of accused was sought on the grounds that as a result of inquiry the actual culprits were taken to task and Respondent No. 1 was found innocent whereas two FIRs of the same occurrence were in the field, hence one of it was required to be cancelled. In this regard, the SHO was - duly examined in Court. As per requirement of law, three possible courses are available to the Magistrate; firstly to agree with the report and order cancellation of the FIR; secondly, to disagree with the report and order further investigation and thirdly, to take 'cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. However, the Magistrate while adopting any of the aforesaid courses is required to at judiciously and in that he is to act fairly, justly and honestly. As is, evident from the circumstances of instant case, two FIRs were registered with regard to the same occurrence and an inquiry was also conducted by a special investigating team, wherein Respondent No. 1 was found innocent, hence in such an eventuality the Magistrate seems to' have committed no illegality while stopping further, proceedings in one of the Flits, i.e. No. 655 dated 19.09.2009.
5. Another important development in the case, as per statement given by learned counsel for respondents at the bar as well as the availability of duly sworn affidavits of the legal heirs of deceased i.e. Mst. Shah Zarina (widow), Fawad Khan (son) and Sajjadullah (complainant and son- in-law of deceased), which reveals that all the legal heirs of deceased have patched-up the matter with the main accused of the case and they are also not interested in further prosecution of the case against Respondent No. 1. This being so, it would not be proper and thoughtful for this Court to interfere with impugned report of police and declare it to be an abuse of the process of Court or to interfere with impugned order of Magistrate, which 'in our view has been passed after proper application of judicial mind, for which he was fully empowered under Section 173(3) read with Section 190 Cr.P.C.
6. As stated above, the legal heirs of deceased, including complainant of the case, have entered into compromise with the principle accused and they have also declared Respondent No. 1 as innocent. Further, the learned counsel for petitioner could did not satisfy this Court, how the petitioner is an aggrieved person, within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution when no right of petitioner would be affected as the legal heirs of deceased have already compromised the matter with accused and ultimate result of the, same would be their acquittal.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order, in the circumstances of the case, is quite reasonable and not liable to any interference from this end. Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.