1. SADAQAT HUSSAIN RAJA, C.J.---All the above titled cases have been filed for quashing of FIRs, so all the cases are disposed off through this single judgment. The captioned writ petitions/petitions have been filed for quashing of FIRs in the above titled case.
2. The stated facts of Writ Petition No. 3381 of 2021, are that an FIR has been registered by the Police Station, Fatehpur Thakyala, District Kotli, under sections 10/16 ZHA. It is stated that petitioner No.1 entered into Nikah with petitioner No. 2 with her free will and consent and the petitioners are legally husband and wife.
3. Comments have been filed on behalf of respondents wherein it is stated that petitioner No. 1 has already been a married woman and her Nikah was solemnized with one Raees Afsar on 25.07.2021.
4. So, in presence of 1st Nikahnama, second Nikah is quite illegal.
5. In Writ Petition No. 2962/2021, the petitioners prayed for quashing of FIR No. 189/2021 dated 02.09.2021 in offences under sections 324/337-A to Z, 506/147, 148/149, A.P.C. registered at Police Station Bagh. It is stated that respondent No. 4 with mala fide intention lodged a false, fabricated and concocted FIR against the petitioners at Police Station Bagh under FIR No. 189/2021 dated 02.09.2021.
6. Comments have been filed wherein it is stated that the petitioners attacked the complainant's son who was injured and the petitioners are nominated in the FIR. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and likely to be dismissed.
7. In Petition No. 1382/2021 the petitioner want to quash the FIR in offences under sections 419/420, 467/468, 471/411, A.P.C. which has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Secretariat, Muzaffarabad on 17.09.2019.
8. Comments have been filed wherein it is stated that the matter relates to factual controversy which cannot be resolved in exercise of petition. It is further stated that the petitioner may put his claim before investigation agency. In Petition No. 299/2021, the petitioner prayed for quashing of FIR bearing No. 91/18, 44/19, 49/20 registered at Police Station Daydal and bearing Nos. 91/18, 44/19, 49/20 registered at Police Station Khuiratta. The petitioner further prayed to keep in abeyance the operation of above mentioned FIRs Nos. 91/18, 44/19, 49/20.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned AAG and gone through the record of case.
10. According to law, the Station Officer can register FIR under section 154 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) section 154 is reproduced as under:-
154. Information in cognizable cases. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an office in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, and very such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf.
11. A perusal of abovementioned reproduced section reveals that In-charge of concerned Police Station is duty bound to register FIR on receiving information of any cognizable offence and conduct investigation in accordance with law. The officer incharge of the Police Station is required by law to record the same in writing, irrespective of the fact that the information which he had received is correct or otherwise.
12. The petitioners claimed that they have not committed any offence and the case was registered due to mala fide intention. The questions raised by the petitioners are question of fact which cannot be determined at this forum. Under law remedies have also been provided to an accused if he is of the view that he has been involved in the case illegally with mala fide intention and there is no chance of ultimate conviction of the accused. Remedies provided for the purpose are as under:- i. To agitate the matter before the investigation agency.
13. After registration of the case/FIR, any Officer In charge of Police Station will investigate, the matter according to section 156, Cr.P.C. It is relevant to reproduce the sections 156 of Cr.P.C. as under:
156. Investigation into cognizable case (1) Any officer incharge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such Station would have power to inquire into or try under the provision of Chapter XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.:
(3) Any Magistrate-empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.
(4) .................................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................
14. I have gone through the abovementioned reproduced provisions of law, which clearly array that the investigation regarding the commission of offence is the duty as well as the prerogative of the police to investigate into the matter whenever a report is made to it and it is for the Investigation Officer to conclude the matter in view of oral and documentary evidence. ii. To approach the Superior Officers under section 551 of Cr.P.C. Relevant section 551 of Cr. P.C. is as under:
551. Powers of superior officer of police. Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. iii. Rule 243 of Police Rules 1934 also provides for cancellation of cases under order of Magistrate.
15. The relevant Rule is reproduced as under: 24.7 Cancellation of cases: Unless the investigation of a case in transferred to another police station or district, no first information report can be cancelled without the orders of a Magistrate of the 1st Class. iv Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 relates to release of accused when evidence is deficient. The relevant section 169 of Cr.P.C. also reproduced as under:-
169. Release of accused when evidence deficient. If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the Officer in-charge of the police-station, or to the police-officer making the investigation that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify The forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police- report and to try the accused or send him for trial. v. Section 249-A of Cr.P.C. also provides power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage. The relevant section is reproduced as under:-- 249-A. Power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from acquitting an accused at any stage of the case if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and or reasons to be recorded, he considers that the charge is groundless or that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence. v. Section 265-K of Cr. P. C. also provides power of Court to acquit accused at any stage. The relevant section is also reproduced as under: 265-K Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent a Court from acquitting, an accused at any stage of the case, if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, it considers that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence.
16. I have also examined the above reproduced law which clearly shows that the High Court has no role at investigation stage unless some glare violation of law is pointed out. If it is allowed then every accused would like to come in the Court for quashing of every case registered under section 154, Cr.P.C. and the whole scheme of law would be frustrated which should not be allowed at any cost. The petitioners/ accused have remedies and countermeasures to put their claim before proper forum.
17. If the case required detailed probe, this Court does not interfere into the investigation proceedings and hamper the investigation agency to investigate into the matter. This view finds support from a case titled Arsalan Raja and 5 others v. The State and 3 others (2020 SCR 336), wherein at para 6 August- Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has observed as under:-
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record appended with the petition. It appears that after obtaining the ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage, Umara Sarshar contracted second marriage with Raja Babar Ishtiaq Khan. Umara Sarshar has not owned the ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage rather she appeared before the police and got recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. In my opinion some controversial facts regarding genuiness of the Nikah of Umara Sarshar with Raja Babar Ishtiaq Khan are involved in the case which are liable to be resolved by the appropriate forum after recording the evidence. The resolution of such like controversial questions cannot be made in the writ petition. It has rightly been argued by the learned Advocate General that in presence of alternate remedy the writ petition was not maintainable. It may be stated that an FIR which is based on mala fide of course can be quashed but no such eventuality is available in the case in hand, therefore, the police cannot be stopped from investigating the matter. No any legal question of public importance is involved in the case, therefore, leave cannot be granted in routine.
18. Recently, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in a case tilted "Nazia Bibi and another v. The State and 3 others" has observed as under: "I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties and have perused the record. A perusal of record reveals that the police registered a case in the offences under sections 16/19, ZHA and 14 EHA against the petitioners, herein, on the application of respondent No. 3, herein on 08.05.2021, which is at investigation stage. According to the spirit and scheme of law, it is the duty of the investigation agency to conclude the investigation and thereafter draw the conclusion whether in the light of evidence, a case for commission of the alleged offences is made out or not. The petitioners, herein filed a writ petition before the High Court for quashment of FIR, registered against them. The learned High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition in limine. If such practice is allowed it may amount to interfere in the domain of investigation agency which is an abuse of the process of law."
19. No doubt this Court is vested with powers to quash FIR if on the face of it no offence appears to have been committed or it appears that the FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention and there is no likelihood of conviction of accused. However, quashing of FIR during investigation is not permissible under law. First Information Report can be quashed by this Court in its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction in the following cases according to the guidelines of the Apex Court of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
(i) If it has been registered by unlawful authority and there is any jurisdictional defect.
(ii) If from perusal of contents of FIR, no cognizable offence 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.
(v) if there is a patent violation of any provision of law or gross misuse of powers of an authority.
(vi) If the offender and victim arrived in a settlement.
20. In the above mentioned cases, the petitioners failed to point out any such eventuality and the allegations levelled in the FIRs relate to facts and the matter can only be resolved after detailed investigation. Hence, at this stage this Court cannot declare the accused innocent and cannot quash the FIRs. An investigation agency cannot be stopped from investigating into a criminal offence by way of filing a writ petition.
21. In light of what has been discussed above, finding no force in the above titled writ petitions/petitions, hence, the same are dismissed with no order as to the costs.