' MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.---Senator Asif Ali Zardari, petitioner herein, has by filing this petition invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and has sought quashment of F.I.R. No,525 of 1997 registered at Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore, under sections 8/9, 12/13 and 14/15 of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997.
2. A copy of the F.I.R. Has been annexed with the writ petition, a perusal of which shows that it was registered on the report made by Muhammad Ashiq Marth, Inspector of Police on the basis of an extract from the statement of one Asif Baloch alias Moora, son of Proond Baloch, resident of 131, Garden West Karachi, who while in custody of the Police stated that he alongwith others including the petitioners were involved in drug trafficking.
3. Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan and Mr. Farooq Naik, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that registration of the F.I.R. Is without lawful authority, inter alia, on the following grounds:--
(i) that in the eye of law, there is F.I.R., as so-called F.I.R. No,525 of 1997 had not been signed by the so-called alleged informant, Arif Baloch.
(ii) that Arif Baloch has denied in this Court in writ petition filed by him that he had ever made any statement implicating the petitioner, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, that the police station of Qila Gujjar Singh has no territorial jurisdiction to register F.I.R. No,525 of 1997,
(iii) that in any event on the statement covering the alleged activity upto 1992, no F.I.R. Could have been registered under the Act of 1997 as it was violated by Article 12 of the Constitution,
(iv) that on the face of document (Annexure 'A') which is not signed by first informant, it was not first information,
(v) that the F.I.R. Is mala fide document intended for collateral purpose and political vengeance against the husband of the leader of the Opposition,
(vi) that no case on the reading of the F.I.R. And averments made therein is made out and the implication of the petitioner is mala fide and this F.I.R. Is being used as a collateral purpose for initiating proceedings abroad,
(vii) that the F.I.R. Is based in hearsay which cannot be made the basis of F.I.R., (viii)that as per the contents of F.I.R. It has been recorded after investigation and it is, therefore, neither legal nor reliable, and
(ix) that the order recorded on Annexure 'A', sealing it was illegal and mala fide.
' Kh. Muhammad Sharif, learned Advocate-General, Punjab as well as Sh. Zia Ullah, Advocate who was appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 have questioned the maintainability of this petition by urging that this Court cannot interfere with the investigation of a criminal case and, in any event, the petitioner should first join investigation.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the view that this petition at this stage is premature and not maintainable. Admittedly, the petitioner has not joined the investigation nor placed his version before, the Investigation Agency. Similarly, the documents on which the petitioner relies have also not been handed over to the investigator, we have been assured by the learned Advocate-General and Sh. Zia Ullah, Advocate that if the petitioner joins the investigation, the Investigation Agency shall duly record the version of the petitioner and give due consideration to the matters placed before it by the petitioner. It has further been undertaken that the investigation shall be completed within a period of one month from today.
5. It is trite law that Court does not normally interfere in the investigation being conducted by the Police though it may do so where the prosecution has been launched mala fide and no case on the face of record is made out. The stage for entering into this aspect of the controversy has not yet arrived and this petition at this stage is premature.
In view of above, this petition is held to be not maintainable and premature and is dismissed as such. However, we direct the Investigation Agency to duly record the version of the petitioner and to consider the material, if any, placed by him before the Investigation Agency. The investigation shall be completed within a period of one month from today. It shall be open to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, if need be.
Writ .