SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, J.-Petitioner through instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that on acceptance of the instant writ petition, the registration of impugned FIR No.951 dated 24.11.2018 under sections 324/34 PPC P.S. City Mansehra against the petitioner and all further proceedings in conseq uence whereof may please be declare d as wrong, illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority , arbitrary , fanciful, perverse, based on malafide, against the fundamental rights of the petitioner and unconstitutional hence be struck down or any other writ, order or relief as this Honourable Court may deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may also be issued/passed."
2. In essence, the petitioner seeks that case FIR No.951 dated 24.11.2018 registered under sections 324/34 PPC, Police Station City, Mansehra, on the report of respondent No.2/ complainant being based on malafide and just to counter the effect of FIR No.934 dated 18.11.2018 under sections 365/34 PPC PS City Mansehra, and is thus, liable to be quashed.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of record would reveal that present case was registered on the report of respondent No.2 against the petitioner under sections 324/34 PPC and the petitioner has obtained ad-interim pre-arrest bail in the case. It is also evident from averments made in the petition that there was also registered another case FIR No.934 against the complainant party.
5. It is by now settled that this Court has limited scope and jurisdiction in such like matters, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, therefore, this Court always refrains itself from interference with the police investigation of a criminal case. Obviously, criminal cases arc decided on the basis of material so collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation, and the evidence recorded in the trial Court, and that too, after appraisal of evidence by it in accordance with the law applicable thereto. This Court cannot assume the role of an investigation agency or of a trial Court to deliberate upon the factual controversies involved in the present petition in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. This view has been consistently enunciated by the august Apex Court that High Court ought to have refrained from exercising constitutional jurisdiction during investigation of a criminal case. Thus, it is held that factual controversies involved in the present case cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction and similarly deviation from the normal procedure of law as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, is not in consonance with the settled principles, besides, when alternate remedies provided under the law are available to the petitioner, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised. Thus, the petitioner was required to have adopted the remedies available to him under the law for redressal of his grievances, as agitated by him before this Court in the instant writ petition. Reliance is placed on case law reported as (2006 SCMR 1192), (2008 SCMR 76) and (PLD) 2013 SC 401).
6. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and discussion made thereupon, the present writ petition, being bereft of merits, hence dismissed in limine.