Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Aslam petitioners are the accused of Crime Case No.318 registered on 1-9-1996 at Police Station Saddar, Depalpur, District Okara under section 379, P.P.C. At the instance of Muhammad Younas respondent No.3. According to the complainant four months before 1-9-1996 his young cow valuing Rs.15,000 was found missing from his house where it was tethered. His alarm attracted Ahmad A.I and Iqbal P.Ws. The footprints reached up to the canal. He expressed his suspicion against Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Aslam petitioners-accused who are said to have confessed their guilt before him. He prayed for taking the legal action. After registration of the case the investigation was conducted. It was on 3-9-1996 that the police recovered the cow alongwith calf from the Dera of Haji Muhammad Siddique father of Muhammad Arif petitioner-accused vide memo. Attested by Zafar A.I, Head Constable and Javed Iqbal, Constable.
2. Through the filing of this writ petition both the petitioners-accused are desirous for the quashment of the F.I.R. On the ground that the same stands registered with malice and that the police has unnecessarily proceeded in the matter as previously in a habeas petition the then Police Officers posted there were burdened with costs paid as compensation.
This writ petition has been resisted by the respondents.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the Police Officer and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the registration of the F.I.R.
Required and desired to be quashed is the outcome of malice of police towards the petitioners- accused. On the contrary on the authority of Muhammad Iqbal v. Deputy Commissioner and others NLR 1993 Crl. 105 Lah. Learned counsel for Muhammad Younas complainant-respondent No.3 argued that the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interrupt or divert ordinary course of procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code and the High Court should be extremely reluctant to interfere with the police investigation unless it is launched with mala fides or is beyond the jurisdiction of the Investigating Agencies concerned. In my view the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for Muhammad Younas complainant/respondent No.3 has to prevail. The pendency of the previous habeas petition against some other Police Officers who were burdened with costs is no ground for the quashment of the instant F.I.R. Being an irrelevant matter and material. This aspect of the matter stands eclipsed from the field. Thereafter on the basis of the recitals of the F.I.R. And recovery of the stolen cattle from the Haveli of Muhammad Siddique father of Muhammad Arif petitioner-accused, the assertion raised by the petitioners that the registration of the F.I.R. Is based on mala fides and malice need not be given the weight. The question as to whether the petitioners are connected with the alleged offence or are innocent calls for determination through evidence and through the method adopted by the petitioners for the quashment of First Information Report it is not legally possible to return a verdict of innocence in their favour. Then remains the delay in reporting the matter to the police which itself being not fatal to the prosecution case cannot be the basis for the quashment of the case and the subsequent proceedings. The dictum enunciated in the case-law referred to by the learned counsel for Muhammad Younas complainant/respondent No.3 stands attracted to the dispute in hand.
Consequently I hold that it is not a case for the quashment of the F.I.R.
5. For what has been said above, I dismiss this petition.