QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J:- Pursuant to registration of case under sections 18-B,22-B E.0 1979 read with Section 109 PPC in Police Station FIA/AHTC, Peshawar, vide FIR No.22/2014 dated 26.03.2014, on the direction of learned Sessions Judge, Peshawar dated 17.03.2014 in petition under section 22-A Cr.PC of respondent No.4/complainant, Najm-ul-Hassan, the petitioners, Asghar Saeed and his son Waqas Saeed, have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973,for quashment of the FIR.
2. The facts narrated in the FIR by the complainant are that the petitioners alongwith co accused Khurram Saeed, another son of Asghar Saeed, lured the complainant/respondent No.4 to pay them pound sterling 10, 000/- for arranging Work Permit and Visa of United Kingdom (UK) for the complainant/respondent No.4 and his other family members, which was never realized, thus prompting the complainant/respondent No.4 to move a complaint to the Director FIA, KPK, Peshawar, for registration of case against the petitioners and co-accused Kurram Saeed under relevant provisions of law. In his complaint, the complainant/respondent No.4 had alleged that the Petitioners were his close relatives, therefore, he ,),tvas deceived by them, and that in order to make arrangement for making payment in Pound Sterling, he had to sell his residential house on throwaway price. On failure of the petitioners to make arrangement for work permit and Visa or to return the amount paid to them by the complainant/respondent No.4, the complainant/respondent No.4 was constrained to approach the FIA Authorities, in the first place, and then move an application under section 22-A Cr.PC in the Court of Sessions Judge, Peshawar, for registration of the case.
3. No doubt, in his comments filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Peshawar, the inquiry officer stated that in view of inquiry conducted by him, no criminal case was made out, warranting registration of FIR; but the comments would reveal that instead of conducting inquiry as an inquiry officer, he assumed the role of a Court by discrediting the proof brought before him by the complainant/respondent No.4.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
6. It is by now well established that once commission of a cognizable offence is reported, the SHO of the Police Station is under legal obligation to register FIR, without first embarking on enquiry, notwithstanding the fact that procedure of FIA is a bit different and inquiry is conducted prior to registration of the case. In any case, once case is registered, then investigation is conducted under the law; and accused in the case, invariably, has the opportunity to put forth his case/defence to the investigating officer, who, under the law, is even authorized to move for release of accused and cancellation of FIR if, after investigation, the charge is proved false, and can also initiate criminal proceedings against the complainant for lodging a false and baseless report. In addition to the said remedy during investigation, even if challan is submitted against the accused, he still has another chance of putting up defence against the case of prosecution by proving the case false and thereby securing his acquittal in the case.
6. In view of availability of other adequate remedies to the petitioner, this writ petition is not maintainable, and is dismissed, accordingly.