Ikramullah Khan, J.--Through the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashment of FIR No, 601 dated 30.10.2015 u/S. 489F, PPC, registered at P.S. West Cantt: Peshawar against him.
2. In essence, respondent being brother-in-law of petitioner was given certain cheques by petitioner in lieu of amount outstanding against him which he had taken as load from the Respondent No, 1, however, on presentation of said cheques it came to surface that the said account has been closed by the petitioner. Consequently on the report of respondent a case vide FIR mentioned above was registered against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for abashment of said FIR. 3.I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties, learned AAG for the State and gone through the available record with their valuable assistance.
4.Perusal of record reveals that both the parties are close relatives and the Cheques in question were given to the Respondent No, 1 by petitioner in lieu of amount outstanding against petitioner but the said cheque could not be encashed due to closure of account by the petitioner, showing the intention of petitioner that he was not honest and sincere in repayment of amount outstanding against him that's why he issued cheques to the respondent of a closed account.
5. Once an FIR is registered, the superior Courts, having Constitutional, supervisory and inherent jurisdiction, have consistently restrained from directly interfering with police investigation of a criminal case as the Courts could not exercise its control over the investigation, which may be prejudicial to the accused as well as detrimental to the fairness of proceedings, apart from being without jurisdiction. This Court cannot interfere in the investigation initiated by police in consequence of registration of a criminal case, who are bound under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to register a case whenever a report is made to it disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence.
6.The functions of judiciary and police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function. If a criminal liability is spelt out from facts and circumstances of a particular case, accused can be tried upon a criminal charge. Quashment of police investigation on the ground of being false would amount to act on treacherous grounds as well as would tantamount to an uncalled for interference by the Court with the duties of police. The conduct and manner of investigation normally is not to be scrutinized under Constitutional jurisdiction which might amount to interference in police investigation as the same could not be substituted by the, Court. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not competent to assume the role of Investigating Agency or the trial Court, to give verdict as to whether an accused person has committed an offence or not. It is for the ordinary Court to decide the matter under the relevant law where remedy in shape of Sections 249-A, Cr.P.C. and 265-K, Cr.P.C. is also available for the aggrieved person, whereby the Court has been given the power of acquitting an accused person at any stage of the case, if after hearing the prosecutor, accused and for reasons to be recorded, the trial Court considers that charge is groundless or that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence. It has been held by the apex Court on various occasions that the investigation stage is outside the purview of this Court having no power of supervision or control over Investigating Agencies, which power is vested in it in respect of Courts subordinate to it.
Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.