1. ' By this Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The applicant Jam Bijar Khan son of Jam All Murad, resident of Village Jam math Karachi, has sought qt ashtnent cf the F.LR. The prayer made in application is reproduced herein below:-- "It is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleaee mat orders whereby the prodding F.I.R.
2. ' No,5 of 1999, lodged are Police Station Shah La:if Town Malir under section 188/109, P.P.C. Be quashed."
3. ' The fact, as disclosed in the application are that he is a well known and honourable person of the locality. He is also Sardar (headman) of Jokhio Tribe and as such he =joys great influence upon the people of the area. On or about 18-2-1999 applicant returned from London and as soon as he reached his house he was approached and informed by the police personnel of Police Station Shah Abdul Latif Town, District Malir that on 17-1-1999 F.I.R. Of Crime No,5 of 1999 was registered against him and his men at the said Police Station under sections 188, 109, P.P.C. The applicant told the said policemen that he had recently come from London and that he was away from the country and therefore he could not be involved in this case. The police advised the applicant to get his bail before arrest from the competent Court of law, else he would be arrested and prosecuted.
4. The concerned police officer also supplied him a copy of the F.I.R., which he has filed with this application.
5. ' The applicant informed the said police officer that he had neither any concern with the plot of land in dispute nor he had given any directions to any person for raising construction thereon. ' The police did not accept the version of the applicant and they have decided to prosecute him on the basis of the F.I.R. Mentioned herein.
6. ' I have heard Mr. M. Shaft Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan, learned counsel on behalf of A.-G. For the State, who has opposed the prayer of the applicant.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following decisions of Lahore High Court to support his contentions:--
(i) Gulnaz and another v. The State and 3 others 1996 PCr.LJ 486.
(ii) Mst. Manzoor Elahi v. Ch. Muhammad Anwar S.H2O., Police Station Luddan, District Vehari 1996 PCr.LJ 975.
(iii) Mst. Kausar Parveen and another v. The State 1995 PCr.0 256.
(iv) Mst. Kaneez Fatima and 3 others v. The State and another 1995 PCr.LJ 1672.
(v) Dr. Ehsanul Haq Niazi and 2 others v. The State 1995 PCr.0 1560.
(vi) 1995 M LD 1254.
(vii) Mst. Haleema Bibi v. The State 1988 PCr.0 1575.
8. ' Before dilating upon the merits of the case the preliminary point for consideration is whether this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with investigation of police at this preliminary stage and quash the FIR. My findings are in the negative for the following reasons.
9. ' In the case of Mst. Shehnaz Begum v. Honourable Judges, Sindh and Balochistan (PLD 1971 SC 677) following dicta was laid down:-- "In any view of the matter, therefore, we have come to the conclusion that the impugned action of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan in the present case was unwarranted and beyond its jurisdiction. For these reasons this appeal must be allowed and the orders of the High Court passed on the 30th October, 1970, 2nd November, 1970, 4th November, 1970, 9th November, 1970 and the 12th November, 1970, must be set aside and the investigation of the case must be allowed to take its own course. Neither the Courts, which may have to deal with the case in the event of a challan being put in or with any intermediary proceeding with regard to it nor the officials who are concerned with the Investigation or the supervision of the conduct of the Investigation Agencies will be influenced by any observations made by the learned Judge of the High Court in any one of these orders. These observations as the learned Judge has himself pointed out should not be construed so as to adversely affect anyone concerned with this case."
10. ' In yet another case of Wali Muhammad alias Walia v. Haq Nawaz (1971 SCM R 717), relying on the case of Mst. Shehnaz Begum (surpa), it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court as under:- "The second ground has since been considered and decided by this Court in the case of Shahnaz Begum v. Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan. In the case under report a learned Single Judge of the said High Court, acting under the impression that he had the necessary power to do, thought it fit to take action suo motu which resulted in interference with the conduct of the investigation already taken in hand by competent agencies under the law. This Court held that the High Court did not possess the power it had assumed either under clause 22 of the Letters Patent of .The High Court of West Pakistan or under any other law or under the Constituent. We must, therefore, hold that the interim order of the High Court, dated 30-9-1969 is without jurisdiction?"
11. ' In a recent decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Saeed v. The State (1996 SCM R 186), following dictum was laid down:- "3. We have carefully attended to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties. We feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., was not competent to quash the F.I.R. We find that the investigation was not complete and no challan had been submitted in the Court when petition for quashment of the F I R. Was filed in the High Court The High Court, under its inherent powers, may quash judicial, if it was of the view that the proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Since no proceedings were pending in the Court by the time the quashment petition was filed in the High Court, the question of preventing the abuse of process of any Court did not arise in this Case."
12. ' It was further observed as under:-- "....We are afraid that the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Could not quash F.I.R. On the ground of mala fide or on the ground that F.I.R. Discloses civil liability...
13. Thus, it is crystal clear that in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Read with section 435, Cr.P.C. This Court is not to interfere with the investigation of the police and it cannot quash the F.I.R. Or pass the orders in terms of prayed by the applicant in this application.
14. For the above reasons, I see no merit in this application, which is dismissed in limine along with M.A.
15. No,264 of 1999.