The petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No,12 of 2001 registered on 25-3-2001 at Police Station Hyderabad, District Bhakkar under sections 324/353/186/148/149, P.E.C. On the complaint of Muhammad Shafi, A.S.-I.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant and Muhammad Iqbal is the allottee of the land. He moved an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Mankera for the revival of the disputed land from the possession of Pathana etc. The report was called for from the revenue authorities and finally the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application of Muhammad Iqbal on 27-2-2001. Then again respondent No,6 moved another application to the Tehsildar who directed the local police to stop Pathana etc. From taking away the crops. Muhammad Strati, A.S.-I.
Went to the spot where the occurrence took place on 25-3-2001 at 6-30 p.m. The petitioner and his companions fired at the police party and the case under the abovesaid provisions of law was registered against the petitioner and others,
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the dismissal of the application of respondent No,6, the Tehsildar had no authority to ask the police official restraining the accused from taking away their crops. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the civil litigation is going on between the parties and the criminal proceedings cannot go side by side and the F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed. He has relied upon Abdullah v. The State 1998 PCr.0 732; Muhammad Shafi and others v. The State 2000 M LD 762 and Muhammad Shafi v. S.H.O., Tiba Sultanpur 1987 SCM R 601 and has contended that the F.I.R. Has been lodged with mala fide intention and ulterior motive and is liable to be quashed on this score alone. It is also contended that if this prayer is not allowed then the criminal proceedings should be stayed till the decision of the civil suit.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and has perused the F.I.R. The F.I.R.
Has been lodged by a police official who went alongwith other police officials to the spot for restraining the accused and for maintaining the peace and tranquillity in the area. Admittedly there is no dispute between Muhammad Shafi, A.S.-I. And the petitioner but the petitioner attacked on the police party while armed with weapons and due to this reason this case has been got registered. There is no nexus between the civil litigation pending between the private parties and the F.I.R. Which has been registered by the police in .Which the petitioner has interfered while Muhammad Shafi, A.S.-I. Was performing his official duties. Admittedly an order was passed by the Tehsildar and the A.S.-I. Went there for execution of the order. If the petitioner had some grievance against them he had alternate remedies. The public functionaries when they went there for execution of some order of any authority they were attacked and the case was registered which is under investigation. The petitioner is at liberty to produce all the record and the evidence before the Investigating Officer and the evidence brought by the petitioner can be considered by him before the conclusion of the investigation. This Court cannot assume the role of an Investigating Officer as has been laid down in Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan and others 1994 SCM R 2142 and the F.I.R. Cannot be quashed and the prosecution cannot be throttled. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant as the facts of the cases relied upon are the disputes between the private persons. Learned counsel has requested for the transfer of the investigation as Muhammad Shaft who is the complainant cannot assume the role of an Investigating Officer. The petitioner is at liberty to move an application to the Superintendent of Police, Bhakkar for the transfer of the investigation who is directed to consider the application of the petitioner and take necessary action in the circumstances of the case.
5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.