This appeal by leave of the Court was directed against a Lahore High Court order that partially quashed F.I.R. No. 8 of 2011, registered under Section 409 and 109 P.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, specifically regarding respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court examined whether a High Court could quash an F.I.R. after the trial court had already taken cognizance of the matter. The Court held that partial quashing of an F.I.R. to the extent of specific accused persons is a legal impossibility. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the settled principle that once a trial court takes cognizance following the submission of a Challan, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. In such circumstances, the accused's remedy lies in seeking premature acquittal under Sections 249-A or 265-K of the Cr.P.C. if the charges are groundless. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, directing the accused to pursue statutory remedies before the trial court.
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order dated 30-9-2011 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,16970 of 2011 whereby F.I.R. No,8 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan on 27-2-2011 in respect of offences under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 109, P.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was partially quashed to the extent of respondent No, 1 .
2. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent NO.1 and having gone through the record of the case with their assistance we have found that through the impugned order the learned Judge-in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had partially quashed the relevant F.I.R. To the extent of respondent No,1 whereas partial quashing of an F.I.R. To the extent of some of the accused persons mentioned therein is a legal impossibility. Apart from that the impugned order had, been passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore at a time when a Challan in the relevant criminal case had already been submitted before the learned trial court and the learned Trial court had already taken cognizance of the case. The law is quite settled by now that after taking of cognizance of a case by a trial court the F.I.R. Registered in that case cannot be quashed and the fate of the case and of the accused persons challaned therein is to be determined by the trial court itself. It goes without saying that if after taking of cognizance of a case by the trial court an accused person deems himself to be innocent and falsely implicated and he wishes to avoid the rigours of a trial then the law has provided him a remedy under sections 249-/265-K, Cr.P.C. To seek his premature acquittal if the charge against him is groundless or there is no probability of his conviction.
3. For what has been discussed above this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Judge--in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 30-9-2011 in Writ Petition No,16970 of 2010 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
…and 14 more citing cases