FAZAL SUBHAN, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C, wherein, they have prayed for quashment of FIR No.1078, dated 31.07.2021, under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. of Police Station Saddar, Mardan.
2. It is contended that on 31.07.2021 respondent No.5 intimidated petitioners Nos.5 and 6 and upon resistance and heated debate, one Jan Said started firing, resulting injuries to Shakir son of Nawaz Khan and the matter was reported vide. Mad No.25 at Police Station Saddar, Mardan and thereafter respondent No.5 along with accomplices flee from the spot. In the meanwhile respondent No.5 reported above fake and fabricated case nominating petitioners Nos.1 to 4 and reporting injury on his hand but in the final medical report the same was proved to be fake, whereafter the respondent No.5 was charged for forgery and using fake documents as genuine. That this, being the factual position and legal aspect of the case, the illegal and unlawful case registered against the petitioners, being based on mala fide and ulterior motive, is to be cancelled/quashed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after considering the FIR it is clear that all the petitioners are nominated in the case whereas accused Ajmal has been attributed the role of .effective firing. The matter was investigated by the local police and during investigation, though the medical report was shown to be the result of forgery however on the same grounds the learned Judge, Civil Court/JMVII/MOD, Mardan has granted bail to the petitioners namely Arif Tauheed and Jan Said. If at all the petitioners have been charged in a false case then they can seek their acquittal under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C., as the ease may be, which is the appropriate remedy available to them and for which the trial Court can be approached. In the case of "State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P v. Gulzar Muhammad and others" (1998 SCMR 873) it was held that:- "7. The case-law surveyed would, therefore, clinch the matter. The trial Court can acquit the accused under sections 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C., as the case may be, at any stage of the proceedings and in the circumstances of each case the appropriate remedy for the accused appears to be to request the trial Court to consider their case under the provisions of law. The learned trial Court should thereupon apply its mind to this aspect of the matter and in the first instance, before it proceeds any further with the proceedings, shall decide whether the accused are entitled to the acquittal in the terms aforesaid then they have the right to approach the High Court for quashment of the Proceedings against them. This rule proceeds on prudence and cautiousness. Nonetheless; both the jurisdictions under sections 249-A/265-K and 561-A, Cr.P.C. are co-extensive. In the instant case it would have been proper to approach the trial Court in the first instance but there is nothing against the High Court for entertaining, the appropriate case, an application under section 261-A, Cr.P.C. directly."
4. It is to be mentioned that after registration of case, the local police under section 156, Cr.P.C. is empowered to investigate a cognizable offence and therefore no restriction can be laid to halt the process of investigation. In the case of "Ajmeel Khan v. Abdur Rahim and others" reported in PLD 2009 Suprem e Court 102, it has been held that:- "6. Needless to emphasise, 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 circumstances of a particular case, accused can be tried upon a criminal charge.
Quashment of FIR during investigation tantamount 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. "
5. For these reasons, we find that there is no justified ground at this stage to allow this petition when legal remedy under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. can be availed at an appropriate forum, hence, this petition, having no merits, is dismissed in limine.