IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has prayed as under:- "(i) The impugned F.I.R, be set aside.
(ii) The respondents be restrained from conducting any further inquiry on the same charge, on which the petitioner has now been dismissed and in relation to which he is engaged in seeking relief from Special Tribunal established by law.
(iii) Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit be also granted."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as Inspector in the Punjab Police before his dismissal on 29.7.2001. On 29.12.2000, a close relative of the petitioner namely Muhammad Hanif who is also an Inspector in the Punjab Police alongwith his nephew Muhammad Akram, was involved in a murder of brother of the petitioner namely, Muhammad Jaffar. FIR No. 581/2000 has been got registered and abovesaid two persons were nominated as accused persons. The petitioner claims that he is making efforts to prosecute the accused persons in the abovesaid FIR but as a counter blast the two respondents have made a series of complaints on all types of subjects including the Assets of the petitioner and these complaints were find in their own names.
3. On 26.9.1990 one Ijaz Ahmad find a complaint in the office of Anti-Corruption Establishment Lahore and the conclusion of the Anti-Corruption was that facts mentioned in the said complaint are false. On 18.6.1997 one Anees Hussain also find a complaint against the petitioner and inquiry No. 381/97 was registered. On 10.11.1997 the findings of the Inquiry Officer was that the allegations contained in the complaint has not been found correct.
4. On 20.1.2000 an anonymous complaint was find and on 21.2.2000 the Inquiry Officer of the said complaint once again arrived at the conclusion after extensive investigation that there was no substance in the allegations including the petitioner having acquired Assets disproportionate to his sources of Income. The petitioner find Writ Petition No. 13508/2001 in which the prayer was made that the Anti-Corruption Department may be restrained from inquiring 4th time allegations against the petitioner. This writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.7.2001 and the following direction was issued which is reproduced as under:- "However, the Director Anti-Corruption is directed to get the inquiry finalized within thirty days from today after joining all the concerned parties and if the petitioners explain is found correct then the matter shall be dropped."
ICA No. 680/2001 was find against the said judgment which has also been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 26.7.2001.
5. The petitioner has been dismissed from service mainly on the basis of the same charge on which inquires have been initiated earlier and the petitioner had been exonerated from the charge of acquiring Assets disproportionate to his known sources of Income. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned FIR No. 28/2001 has been registered against the petitioner in which it has been alleged t;hat the petitioner has acquired properties which he could not acquire due to his limited sources and the value of the properties is Crores of rupees.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the registration of the FIR is with mala fide intention and ulterior motives and the pendency of the investigation will be abuse of process of law as in the earlier 4 inquires conducted by the Anti- Corruption Department the petitioner on the same allegations was exonerated, It is further contended that the FIR has been lodged after the period which has been mentioned for holding the inquiry of 30 days by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 13508/2001 vide order dated 20.7.2001. It is also contended that the petitioner is being vexed twice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends the FIR has been lodged on the basis of inquiry which has been conducted in violation of the orders of this Court and is illegal, It is also contended that the earlier Inquiry Officer who recommended for dropping of the inquiry has passed the order of the registration of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the FIR is based on false allegations and the petitioner is innocent and he is involved due to the enmity of private respondents and has also been dismissed from service on the same allegations, It is also contended that the registration of the FIR and continuation of the investigation will be abuse of process of law.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the documents attached with his petition. Serious allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that he acquired the properties of Crores of rupees during his service as Police Inspector, and all these properties have been acquired by the petitioner through corruption and by misusing his powers and authorities, as the petitioner had no other source except the salary which was being received by him during his service. Though in the earlier enquiries so conducted, the petitioner was exonerated, but the same cannot be made basis for the quashment of FIR which has also been registered on the basis of inquiry report prepared by the person who was competent to hold the inquiry, after following all the procedures under the Rules. As a result of the thorough inquiry prima facie the case against the petitioner has been found necessitating the registration of the FIR. After the issuance of show-cause notice the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the charge-sheet which is attached with this petition shows that the properties acquired by the petitioner is worth of Crores of, rupees which is beyond the ostensible income of the petitioner during his service period. The matter requires thorough investigation and I have noticed that the petitioner in the earlier inquires has not denied most of the properties acquired by him during his service but has given some explanations that he has purchased the property sometimes through his father and sometimes through the partner of his father. The FIR cannot be quashed in a slipshod manner merely on the oral assertions of the petitioner. The thorough investigation is required in which, of course, petitioner will also be afforded equal opportunities to prove his innocence and also explain the sources by which he has purchased the properties. The investigation will be conducted to probe that how the petitioner has acquired these properties which prima facie are beyond his sources of income. The factual controversies are involved which cannot be resolved without recording of the evidence. The Investigating Officer will, of course, record the evidence and will come to a definite conclusion whether the petitioner has acquired properties in a lawful manner or the properties have been acquired by misusing his authority and by corruption. This Court cannot resolve the factual controversies in writ jurisdiction and also cannot assume the role of Investigating Officer as has been laid down in Brig Imtiaz's case reported as 1994 SCM R 2142. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case for the quashment of FIR. This petition has no merits and is dismissed.