By means of instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R No. 658/2010, dated 23.07.2010, under Section 406, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Kotwali Jhang.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are frivolous as Story narrated in the FIR does not appeal to prudent mind. the same is quite unbelievable and beyond the mind of human being. It in also contended that the petitioner committed no offence.
Learned counsel further stated that actually house of petitioner's wife, real aunt of Respondent No. 2/complainant is under the illegal possession of Respondent No. 2 and in order pressurize the petitioner and his wife to withdraw civil litigation, the instant FIR has been lodged, therefore, pendency of the FIR would be nothing but abuse of process of law and wastage of valuable time of the Court.
3. Contrarily, learned DPS assisted by learned counsel for the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 has opposed this petition with vehemence. It is contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to take the role of Investigating Agency and to quash the F.I.R while exercising constitutional powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., unless and until very exceptional circumstances exist, which surely are missing in the instant case.
4. Arguments heard. Record available on file perused.
5. This Court in a reported judgment Ch. Pervez Ellahi vs. The Federation. of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others (1995 M LD 615) has laid down following parameters on the basis of which a criminal case can be quashed while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction-- (a)when the case is of no evidence; (b)when the very registration of the case is proved to be mala fide on the face of record; (c)when the case is of purely civil nature, criminal proceedings are not warranted in law, especially to harass the accused; (d)when there is serious jurisdictional defect; and (e)when there is unexceptional delay in the disposal of the case causing deplorable mental, physical and financial torture to the person proceeded against.
No ground has been substantiated by learned counsel for the petitioner falling within realm of above parameters. Moreover, after perusing the contents of FIR, I don't find that offence as narrated in the F.I.R is not made out. It is settled principle of law that the prosecution of a case cannot be quashed at the initial stage, which is the jurisdictional parameters of the trial Court to decide the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner(s) after shifting and evaluating the prosecution evidence.
6. For the foregoing reasons, having found no substance in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the Investigating Officer is directed to submit challan before the learned trial Court without fail.