CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-~ The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that case F.I.R. No. 126/97 registered against the petitioner under Section 36/337 H-2/148, 149, P.P.C, at Police Station Massan, District Jhang.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that F.LR. Does not disclose any offence as the complainant himself thrown his wife on the road. He further contended that F.I.R, was lodged against the whole family of his wife. It is also contended that the petitioner find Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1212-H/97 in which the Wife of the complainant was produced in Court and she stated that complainant himself thrown her on the road. He further contended that complainant's wife has also fried suit for dissolution of marriage and suit for maintenance before the Family Court Jhang, therefore, the complainant has find aforesaid F.I.R, against the family of petitioner with malice. He relied upon (1997 SCM R 2008) and (P.L.D, 1997 S.C. 208).
3. Learned Asst. Advocate General contended that the F.I.R, cannot. Be quashed at this stage. The petitioner should have to appear before the I.O. Who is bound to act strictly in accordance with law.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
It is pertinent to mention that petitioner has find this writ petition with the prayer to quash the F.I.R.
This controversy has since been decided by the Privy Council (A.I.R. 1945 P.C. 18); that this Court has no jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R. This view was considered and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Begum Shahnaz's case (P.L.D. 1971 S.C. 677). Subsequently, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered all the case-law and upheld the view of Privy Council in Breg. Imtiaz Ahmad's case (1994 SCM R 2142); that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R, as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases at the preliminary stage. Our Constitution is based on trichotomy as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zia-ur-Rehman's case (P.L.D. *1973 S.C. 49) and Mian Nawaz Sharif's case (P.L.D. 1993 S.C. 473).
It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not joint the investigation and did not allow the Investigating Agency i.e. Police to, investigate the matter. It is the prerogative of the Police to investigate the matter. The petitioner did not allege any specific malice qua the- police official/officer. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199, of the Constitution which is discretion of the Court. I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction in favour of- the petitioner who did not even join the investigation as is evident that the F.I.R. No. 126/97 was registered on 17-7-1997 and the petitioner find this writ petition on 23-7-1997. I am fortified by the following judgments:- Ronaq Ali's case (P.L.D. 1973 S.C. 236); Haji Saif Ullah's case (P.L.D 1989 SC 166); and Rana Arshad's case (1998 SCM R 1462).
5. In the interest of justice and fair play, let a copy of writ petition be sent to S.S.P. Jhang, who shall look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law.
With the above observation the writ petition is disposed of.