MUHAMMAD SHERAZ KIANI, J.--- The captioned writ petition has been filed under section 44 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for quash ment of FIR No.160/2020 dated 25.07.2020 registered at Police Station Ghari Dupatta, District Muzaf farabad, in offences under sections 504, 147, 148, 149, 337, A.P.C., wherein, it is alleged that on 25.07.2020, the complainant Raja Sajid Khan was present in his land for the purpose of construction of shops, in the meantime, Raja Azad Khan and others (petitioners and proforma petitioners) having sticks in their hands launched a murderous attack upon the complainant. It has also been alleged that during the occurrence, the complainant and others were got seriously injured.
2. Preliminary arguments heard.
The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the story narrated in the FIR is false and it is a result of extraordinary promptness and thus liable to be quashed. In support of his version he referred a judgment of Lahore High Court in the cases titled "The State v. AU Ahmad and Ali Ahmad v. The State and others ". He argued that the distance of 10 kilometers, cannot be covered within 30 minutes as shown in the FIR. He also referred FIR No.162/2020, wherein, the time of occurrence is mentioned as 8:48 a.m., so according to the version of the learned counsel it is not possible that after involvin g in two incidents the party can reach at the police station in such a quick time.
3. Firstly , it is a question of facts whether a distance of 10 kilometers can be travelled within 30 minutes or not and secondly the D distance of 10 kilometers is not impossible to cover within a time of 30 minutes in these days of quick transportation system. There is no other law point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is to be noted here that an FIR can be quashed only in the following E eventualities;
(i) If it has been registered without lawful authority and there is any jurisdictional defect;
(ii) If from perusal of contents of FIR, no cognizable of fence is constituted or made out;
(iii) If the civil liability has been converted into a criminal liability and to be enforced through criminal machinery;
(iv) If on the face of it, even remotely there seems no connection of the alleged accused with the offence and there is no probability of the conviction of the accused and the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the law or Court; If there is a patent violation of any provision of law or gross misuse of powers of an authority;
(vi) If regarding the same incident, instead of recording the counter version in the record of same FIR, a second one is registered mostly due to mala-fide reasons or ulterior motive and the culprit and victim are put in the same box. (Ref. PLD 2018 SC 595 ); Obviously in the instant case second FIR is FIR No.162/2020 not FIR No.160/2020. A bare reading of the impugned FIR prima facie constitutes the cognizable offence. It is to be observed here that if there is no illegality on the face of the record, ordinarily the investigation is not hampered (except the eventualities mentioned hereinabove) and there is plethora of judgments on this point. For reference only two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (2014 SCR 183 and 2014 SCR 809) are sufficient to elaborate the proposition. In the case titled "Shan Mohammad v . Mohammad Younis and 4 others" reported as 2014 SCR 183, it was held as under:- "The Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the police to perform the duties in a particular sphere. The registration of FIR and investigation of the case is the sole duty of the police. After registration of a cognizable case, the police has to collect the material and after thorough investigation it has to submit a report to the Magistrate whether the offence has been committed or not. If the police reaches the conclusion that from the material collected, the accused are connected with the crime, then challan has to be submitted. If the police reaches the conclusion that there is no evidence, it may make a request in its report under section 173, Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate for cancellation of case. The High Court/Sha riat Court while acting under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has no power to take the role of investigating agency and declare that the FIR was not correctly registered. It has powers to interfere under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for implementation of order of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. If the proceedings are pending before any Court and it appears that there is abuse of process of Court, only then it can make order for quashment of proceedings."
4. The Court powers even under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly with utmost care only in the interest of justice particularly where there is no other procedure or remedy is available.
Such powers should not be used to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure in a casual or cursory manner . It is to be noted here that the accused-petitioners have the alternate remedy to put their version before the investigating officers and then before the trial. Court. Innocence or guilt of an accused cannot be determined by this Court while invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under section 44 of the (AJ&K) constitution or even under the powers conferred on this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The disputed questions of facts alleged against the accused-petitioners require appreciation and analysis of evidence which exercise can be taken only by the trial Court after trial of the case. Reliance can be placed upon the cases reported as PLD 2007 SC 539, 1994 SCMR 2142 , 2012 PCr .LJ 630 and PLD. 2010 Karachi 204 .
Under these conditions, I am not inclined to suspend the impugned FIR because no case is made out and there is no legal point for admission of this writ petition. The case referred by the learned counsel for the " petitioners is not relevant as no question of quashment of FIR was involved in that case.
Therefore, finding no force in this petition, it is hereby J dismissed in limine.