RASHEED AHMED SOOMRO, J.---Through instant constitutional petition, the petitioner Abdul Qadir hfi mainly prayed for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.521/2016 lodged at P.S.Kotri by Tahir Ghaffar Khanzada, the Drug Inspector Jamshoro for offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 353 and 324, P.P.C., 3,4,6 read with 9 Sindh Allopathic Unauthorized System Act No.XVIII 2015, 18 I.F.
Drugs Act, 1976. Notices were issued against respondents as well as learned AAG and learned DPG.
Comments are filed by SSP Jamshoroo and SHO P.S. Kotri.
2. SHO P.S. Kotri in his comments has stated that one Tahir Ghaffar, the Drug Inspector Jamshoro, appeared at police station and lodged FIR bearing Crime No.521/2016 lodged at P.S. Kotri for offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 353, 324, P.P.C., 3, 4, 6 read with 9 Sindh Allopathic Unauthorized System Act No.XVIII 2015, 18 I.F. Drugs Act, 1976. After usual investigation the final report has been submitted before the concerned court.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that false FIR has been registered against the petitioner and no offence from contents of FIR is made out against the petitioner other allegations leveled in the FIR are also denied. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that proceedings arising out of the aforesaid crime may be quashed.
4. Learned AAG as well as learned DPG oppose the quashment of proceedings arguing that FIR was registered against the petitioner and after usual investigation, finding substance in the FIR final report has been submitted against the petitioner and matter is pending before the competent court of law. Cognizance has already been taken in the matter against the petitioner. Learned AAG has placed reliance upon PLD 2013 SC 401.
5. We have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.
From the comments filed by S.H.O. Police Station Kotri it transpires that one Tahir Ghaffar the Drug Inspector on behalf of the state lodged the FIR against the petitioner at Police Station Kotri vide Crime No.521/2016 for offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 353, 324, P.P.C., 3, 4, 6 read with 9 Sindh Allopathic Unauthorized System Act No. XVIII 2015, 18 I.F. Drugs Act, 1976, and after usual investigation final report has been submitted against the petitioner before concerned court and the learned trial court has taken the cognizance of the offence. As regard to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR is false and no case is made out against the petitioner.
Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 2013 SC 401 in the case of Director General Anti-Corruption Establishment Lahore and others v. Muhammad Akram Khan, has held as follows:-- "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 FIR to the extent of respondent No.1 whereas partial quashing of an FIR 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 FIR registered in the 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-A/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"
6. The trial court has already taken cognizance of the offence under sections 419, 420, 353, 324, P.P.C., 3, 4, 6 read with 9 Sindh Allopathic Unauthorized System Act No. XVIII 2015, 18 I.F. Drugs Act.
1976, therefore, proceedings cannot be quashed. Fate of the case is to be determined by trial court after conducting trial. However, accused may seek remedy under sections 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C. to seek his premature acquittal, if the charge is found groundless or there is no possibility of his conviction. If application is filed, trial Court shall decide the same after hearing both parties in accordance with law.
7. For what has been discussed above, instant constitution petition is without merit and same is dismissed.