The petitioners seek quashment of F.I.R. No. 59, dated 2-12-1987, of Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan recorded for commission of offence punishable under section 409/420/114, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegations levelled through this F.I.R. Disclosed that the two ` petitioners alongwith Abdul Rehman, Safdar Hussain and one Mushtaq, Sub-Inspector of police had organised a gang and operated to deprive innocent persons of their money and valuables.
2. It is contended that no recovery of any money had been affected from the two petitioners who were not at all concerned with the commission of the alleged offence through the F.I.R. In question.
It is further contended that the occurrence allegedly took place more than two years ago and that the challan had still not reached the Court which indicated that the Investigating Agency in fact had no material to connect the accused petitioners with the commission of the offences in question. And it is finally argued that the F.I.R. Is a result of the petitioners' enmity with one Murid Hussain, an Assistant Director of A.C.E., Multan and who according to the learned counsel is the architect of the entire case against the petitioners which case deserved to be quashed on account of mala fides.
3. The learned Addl. A.-G. Accepts Murid Hussain respondent No.2 aforesaid as the architect of the F.I.R. In question because he is the one who had held the preliminary inquiry as per the A.C.E. Rules which inquiry had then led to the registration of the F.I.R. In question. But submits that the said Murid Hussain had no enmity with the petitioners and that the petitioners did file writ petitions against him only in his official capacity and that also after he had commenced the preliminary inquiry.
4. A perusal of the writ petitions and the orders passed thereon by this Court support the contentions of the learned Addl. A.-G. Nothing has been brought on the record to establish that Murid Hussain aforesaid had any personal enmity or grudge against the petitioners or other accused persons. The earlier writ petitions appended with the present writ petition do not prove any such malice or ill-will.
5. Mere non-recovery of money from the petitioners is no ground for quashment of the F.I.R. Nor can this Court, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, substitute itself for the Investigating Agency to find out whether the petitioners are or are not involved in the commission of the offences in question.
6. Needless to say that delay in submission of a challan is, by itself, no ground for quashment of an F.I.R. In any case Dur Muhammad, D.S.P. (Investigation) who was investigating this case states that the challan is ready and is being shortly filed in the Court.
7. Let it be reiterated that this Court is always reluctant to interfere with the mere recording of F.I.Rs.
Or with the resultant investigations except in cases of clear malice or where a bare reading of the F.I.R., even if presumed correct, would not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence at all.
Reliance is placed on Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18, Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Baluchistan PLD 1971 SC 677 and Malik Ghulam Ahmad v. Haji Muhammad Yousaf and others PLD ; 1976 SC 271.
8. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed.
9. But before I part with this order, I may observe that the information about the commission of the offences in question was conveyed to the A.C.E. In February, 1987. The preliminary enquiry appears to have taken ten months to complete and the F.I.R. Was finally recorded on 2-12-1987 and after one year and six months of the registration of the F.I.R. The challan has not still reached the Court.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the Director A.C.E. Punjab, who, I am sure, would like to find out why the investigations are taking years to complete when the law expected them to conclude within days.
S.A./A-738/L