Through the instant writ petition, petitione r/accused namely Malik Naeem Akhtar has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 215, dated 17.02.2022, under Section 489-F , PPC, registered at Police Station Lohi Bher , Islamabad.
2. As per the allegations contained in FIR, pursuant to agreement dated 19.10.2020, petitioner issued cheque worth Rs.23,400,000/- to the respondent No.2, which on presentation stood dishonoured for want of fund. After the registration of FIR, petitioner moved appli cation for pre-arrest bail, which is still pending and also moved this Court through the instant petition for quashing of the subject FIR.
3. According to the learned counsel, the dispute on the face of it is of civil nature as the parties are in business relations for quite long time; that petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of agreement and the cheques that includes the cheque in-question, therefore, further proceedings would be abused of process of law .
4. Heard, record perused.
5. The subject FIR stood registered against the petitioner on 17.02.2022 while petitioner has already availed remedy of pre-arrest bail, which is still pending and not confirmed as yet.
6. The contention that it was the respondent No.1/complainant who failed to abide by his commitment under the agreement and that the mischief, if any, is attributable to latter, of course, requires factual inquiry, not permissible under constitutional jurisdiction.
7. It is settled principle that the jurisdiction in terms of Article of 199 of the Constitution or under Section 561 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR can only be in exceptional cases. The exercise of extra ordinary discretion is permissible in cases where on the basis of facts admitted and patent on record, no offence can be made out, and then it would amount to abuse of process of law to allow prosecution to continue with the trial. Reliance is placed upon case of "State through Advocate-General, NWFP Peshawar and others. V. Gulzar Muhammad and others" (1998 SCMR 873 ) and "Miraj Khan V . Gull Ahmed and 3 others" ( 2000 SCMR 122 ).
8. In addition, petitioner retains more than one alternate remediesincluding an application under Section 249-A Cr.P.C., at any stage of the proceedings.
9. Admittedly , petitioner had already availed remedy of pre-arrest bail. In an identical situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Ajmeel Khan V . Abdul Rahim and others." ( PLD 2009 SC 102 ) observed that:- "Needless to emphasis, that functions of the judiciary and the 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 circu mstances of a particular case, accused can be tried upon a criminal charge. Quashment of FIR during investigation tantamounts to throttling the investigation which is not permissible in law. However , FIR can be quashed by High Court in its writ jurisdiction when its registration appears to be misuse of process of law or without any legal justification. The police are under a statutory duty under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and have a statutory right under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate a cognizable offence whenever a report is made to it disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. To quash the police investigation on the ground that the case is false would be to act on treacherous grounds and would tantamount to an uncalled for interference by the Court with the duties of the police."
10. In view of above, there exists no exceptional ground warranting quashing of subject FIR, consequently , the instant writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed in limine.