' The petitioner through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution seeks quashment of F.I.R. No,314/95, dated 9-9-1995 being without any evidence, suffering from inordinate delay and based on mala fides.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that a forged and fictitious agreement of tenancy was prepared by Nadeem Ahmad respondent No,2 regarding Shop No,15 situated in Sadat Market, Ichhra, Lahore showing petitioner No,10 as the executant; petitioner No,10 after getting the information got lodged F.I.R. No,223/94 under section 420/465/468/471, P.P.C. With Police Station Ichhra, Lahore against Nadeem Ahmad respondent No,2 wherein Khalid Mahmood petitioner No,1 was a recovery witness.
Nadeem Ahmad respondent No,2 also got registered F.I.R. No,158 under section 380/448/148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station Ichhra, Lahore against petitioners Nos.1, 10 and others. The Investigating Officer deleted offences under section 380/448, P.P.C. And submitted challan under section 148/149, P.P.C. And ultimately the case was discharged and the petitioners were acquitted in the said case.
The respondent No,2 thereafter moved an application on 22-4-1995 to the S.H.O. Police Station Ichhra, alleging therein that Sharif etc. Had stolen 109 grams of gold from his shop on 21-2-1993; the complainant/respondent No,2 could not prove allegation against the said persons and the same was dismissed as being false.
3. The respondent No,2 again filed a fresh application to the respondent No,1 S.H.O. By adding certain names repeating the same issue of theft in 1993, whereupon case F.I.R. No,314/95, dated 9- 9-1995 under section 457/380, P.P.C. Has been registered against the petitioners, hence this petition for quashment of the F.I.R.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. It is evident from the record that respondent No,2 moved an application before the respondent No,1 on 22-4-1995 which was found false and the same was filed. Later on, respondent No,2 again moved an application on the basis of which this impugned F.I.R. No,314/95 has been registered. It is interesting to note that impugned F.I.R. Has been got registered after the evidence recorded in case F.I.R. No,223/94 lodged by the petitioner No,10 Muhammad Shard against respondent No,2 Nadeem Ahmad. The occurrence has taken place in between 11/12-8-1993 while impugned F.I.R. Has been got registered by respondent No,2 with a delay of about two years. Furthermore, on the same set of allegations except addition of certain more persons, the story of theft was found false and application of complainant was filed. The registration of impugned F.I.R. In such an eventuality is nothing but misuse of process of law. The factum of delay of more than two years itself is a sufficient circumstance to hold the prosecution story as an afterthought. I am of the view that F.I.R.
In question has been got registered as a counterblast to the F.I.R. Registered by the petitioner No,10 and the same is the result of mala fide on the part of the respondents.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that, F.I.R. No,314/95, dated 9-9-1995 registered with Police Station Ichhra, Lahore is hereby quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
F.I.R. Quashed.