' SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.---Through instant petition, petitioner Abdul Majeed seeks quashment of F.I.R. No, 350, dated 4-7-2012 under section 406, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Margalla, Islamabad.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that on complaint of respondent No,4 above mentioned F.I.R. Has been lodged wherein it is alleged that in the year 2004/2005, petitioner had to supply a land situated in Maira Sumbal Akku and Sarai Kharbuza, and petitioner informed the complainant that land had been transferred in his name therefore, sale consideration for the same has to be paid to the respective owners and called the complainant in F-8 Markaz, Islamabad for payment. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. That while believing the petitioner, complainant paid the amount as sale consideration but subsequently mutations were cancelled by Tehsildar, Islamabad. In this way petitioner defrauded the complainant, hence this F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that earlier, complainant managed the registration of F.I.R.
No,206 dated 26-9-2006 under sections 420, 468, 471 of P.P.C., Police Station Golra Shareef, Islamabad and now on the same issue he maneuvered the registration of impugned F.I.R., therefore proceedings in the present F.I.R. Are in violation of section 403 of Cr.P.C. And section 26 of General Clauses Act. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that F.I.R. Does not reveal the commission of any cognizable offence, hence registration of same is illegal and unlawful as the requisite land was transferred in favour of complainant and in all mutations; petitioner appeared on behalf of Wajid Hussain Bukhari record of which is available. When an amount of Rs,60 lacs became due and outstanding on his part, he became dishonest and managed the registration of F.I.R. Through his influence.
' Learned counsel for petitioner further argued that in terms of section` 403, Cr.P.C., a person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him. It is contended that Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, also provides protection against double punishment. Learned counsel for petitioner prayed that F.I.R. No,350, dated 4-7-2012 being violative of section 403, Cr.P.C. May be quashed.
4. On the other hand learned standing counsel assisted by learned counsel of the complainant submits that from the contents of F.I.R., an offence is constituted and F.I.R. Cannot be quashed through exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through contents of F.I.R.
5. First aspect which this court has to examine is that, whether this court have power, discretion, mandate, jurisdiction and authority to quash any F.I.R. Or not? It is well settled, that High Court being Constitutional Institution is savior and protector of the rights of the citizens. Article 199 of the Constitution showers mandate upon the High Court to issue writs of all kinds. For convenience sake Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is being supplied, which reads as under:-
199. Jurisdiction of High Court.---(1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,---
(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order--
(i) directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do; or
(ii) declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no, legal effect, or
(b) On the application of any person make an order---
(i) directing that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the court be brought before it, so that the court may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner: or
(ii) requiring a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the court holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under what authority of law, he claims to hold that office; or
(c) On the application of any aggrieved person, make an order giving such directions to any person or authority, including any Government exercising any power or performing any function in, or in relation to, any territory within the jurisdiction of that court as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter-I of Part-II.
6. Reading of above, makes it clear that discretion to declare any act of the police officials, to be without lawful authority is available to the High Court. Now, question arises that in which cases declaration can be made that registration of F.I.R. Is besides the law, making the same liable to abashment? Answer to this, has been provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through different authoritative pronouncements. Reference is being made to 1993 SCM R 71 and 2000 SCM R 122, 2012 SCM R 94
7. Judgments on the issue provide following situations wherein discretion of exercising the authority of abashment of F.I.R. Has been approved:--
(i) Registration of F.I.R. By Police/Authorities having no jurisdiction to register the same.
(ii) From the admitted contents of F.I.R., no offence is constituted.
(iii) From contents of F.I.R. Matter purely is of civil nature.
' Even in the judgments through which exercise of such discretion has been disapproved "door of extraordinary circumstance" has been kept open. Guidance in this regard has been borrowed from 1996 SCM R 186, 2006 SCM R 276 and 2001 SCMR 1165.
8. It is admitted fact that parties entered into an agreement with regard to private land. The contents of F.I.R. No,206 dated 26-9-2006 and of instant FIR are indicative of the fact that both F.I.Rs, surfaced from same transaction with almost similar allegations. It is well settled C law with the mandate of the dictums of superior Courts of the country that no person/authority can be allowed to curtail the liberty of any person on the basis of same accusation. Trend to exert pressure of criminal proceedings for settlement of civil dispute is on high and it is, common perception that they who exercise their lucrative influence upon the police succeed in getting registration of F.I.R., so that person nominated as accused may enter into compromise on the terms of complainant and dictates of police. Instant matter is crude example of arbitrary exercise of authority and abuse of process of law.
' In this view of the matter instant petition is allowed and impugned F.I.R. No,350, dated 4-7-2012 is quashed, however, these observations shall not affect the rights of either of the parties to be adjudged and decided by the court of competent jurisdiction for determination of liability, if any.