' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 31-5-1999, whereby the writ petition filed by Abdul Basit, respondent was accepted and the criminal proceedings which were sub judice before the Tehsil Criminal Court were dropped.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a case was registered against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 on the report of Khadim Hussain, appellant herein, at Police Station, Muzaffarabad under sections 337, 148, 149, 341 and 147, A.P.C. On 11-1-1999, wherein it was alleged that there was enmity between the parties with regard to some passage and criminal litigation was already in progress, between them. Khalid Mahmood, who was coming to his home by a motorcycle on the fateful day of occurrence, was waylaid by the accused respondents and some others and was assaulted. He was taken to C.M.H. By a Suzuki driver and, subsequently, he was medically examined and the injuries were found on his body. At the instance of the appellant, herein, a criminal case was registered against respondents and subsequently, they were challaned in the Tehsil Criminal Court. When the case was still under investigation, Abdul Basit, accused respondent, filed a writ petition in the High Court alleging that in fact the injuries sustained by Khalid Mahmood were the result of an accident and a false case was registered against the accused respondents so as to wreak vengeance on them. It was further prayed that the confinement of the accused respondents was illegal and they might be released on bail. The High Court admitted the writ petition for regular hearing and also released two of the accused- respondents on bail. The petition for leave to appeal was filed by the appellant, herein, against the order passed by the High Court which was accepted and the appeal is still pending in the Registry for completion. Meanwhile, the High Court finally decided the writ petition filed by Abdul Basit respondent, observing that the case registered against the accused-respondents was false and in fact the injuries sustained by Khalid Mahmood were the result of an accident and were not inflicted by them. The High Court directed that the proceedings against the accused-respondents in the Tehsil Crimial Court might be dropped. Consequently, the Tehsil Criminal Court dropped the proceedings. It is against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court that the present appeal has been preferred.
3. Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Kiani, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that Abdul Latif, respondent No,2, herein, was Stenographer of the learned Judge who passed the impugned judgment in the High Court thus according to the learned counsel for the appellant, it was not desirable for learned Judge to have heard the case. He has argued that as a criminal case which was duly registered, investigated and the challan was filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction, the High Court was not competent to quash the proceedings in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel has argued that it is well-settled principle of law that when a criminal case is registered against an accused person, the matter is to be decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction and no writ lies in such cases. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has transgressed the jurisdictional limits while passing the impugned judgment and pre- empted the powers of the trial Court. He has argued that when the petition for leave to appeal against the admission order was allowed by this Court and the appeal was pending in this Court, it was all the more necessary for the High Court not to have finally disposed of the writ petition by quashing the proceedings in the challan. The learned counsel has also referred to the medical report and the contents of the F.I.R. In support of his contention that in fact the findings of the High Court that a false case was concocted are not only without evidence and could not be given in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited following authorities in support of his contentions that the High Court was not competent to interfere in the police investigation or quash the F.I.R. On which a criminal case is registered, specially so when the case had already been challaned in the Tehsil Criminal Court. He has submitted that it is well-settled principle of law that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interfere in the police investigation or the trial of a case.
' In case reported as Malik Ghulam Ahmad v. Haji Muhammad Yousaf and others PLD 1976 SC 271 it has been held that High Court has no power to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of writ jurisdiction vested in it under Article 98 of the relevant Constitution of Pakistan.
' In case reported as Muhammad Saeed Azhar v. Martial Law Administrator, Punjab and others 1979 SCMR 484 it has been observed that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) cannot be invoked for challenging the registration of the case attributing mala fide to the local police. It is observed that question of mala fide on the part of local police requires factual investigation which could not be undertaken by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
' In case reported as Nazir Ahmad Chaudhry v. Zia-ul-Haq and 3 others PLD 1987 Lah. 214 it was observed that discretionary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked praying that concerned Courts failed to initiate proceedings against the concerned person under section 476 Cr.P.C. Thus the writ petition was held incompetent and same was dismissed in limine.
' In case reported as A. Habib Ahmed v. M.K.G. Scott Christian and others PLD 1992 SC 353 it has been held that wrong decision does not necessarily mean decision without jurisdiction. Thus while exercising power under Articles 199 and 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), the order of quashment of the criminal proceedings passed by the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court and case was entrusted to the Special Court to try it according to law.
' In case reported as Sindh Quality Control Board of Drug and another v. Messrs Pioneer Laboratories, Karachi and 6 others 1993 SCMR 1177 it was held that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) was not exercisable for the quashment of criminal prosecution, particularly when other remedies were available to the aggrieved person under law.
' In case reported as Sindh Quality Control Board of Drug and Abdul Jabar Kazi, Inspector of Drugs v.
Messrs Pioneer Laboratories, Karachi and others 1993 SCMR 1177 it has been observed that High Court should not exercise writ jurisdiction when the statute under which the prosecution is launched provides remedies to the accused. Consequently the order of the High Court quashing the criminal proceeding was set aside.
' In case reported as Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522 it has been observed that High Court had no jurisdiction to quash the acquittal proceeding, recorded by Magistrate, in exercise of its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution.
' In case reported as Munir Ahmad and another v. The State and 2 others 1993 MLD 537 it has been observed that High Court could not set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge in a criminal matter while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973).
5. In reply Mr. Muhammad Idrees Mughal, the learned counsel for the respondents, had controverted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. He has cited a number of authorities given under section 561-A of Cr.P.C. Wherein in appropriate cases the High Court quashed the proceedings pending in the subordinate Courts. He has also referred to some of the authorities in which the bail was granted while hearing the petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. The aforesaid authorities are not relevant for the disposal of the present appeal. In the instant case this Court has to see as to whether the High Court was legally competent in exercise of writ jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the accused respondents in fact committed the offences or a false case was got registered by the complainant party so as to wreak vengeance upon the respondents-accused. The counsel for the respondents has contended that the reasons which weighed with the High Court for passing the impugned order were sufficient to quash the proceedings in question in exercise of writ jurisdiction. He has submitted that accused- respondents were innocent as is evident from the affidavit and the statements of some of the witnesses which have been relied upon by the High Court in the impugned judgment. He has argued that High Court was competent to interfere in writ jurisdiction to quash the investigation proceedings or the criminal proceedings which were pending in the Court. He has referred the following authorities in support of his contention:-- ' In case reported as Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, Advocate v. Assistant Commissioner and others 1989 PCr.LJ 558, the facts were that a practising Advocate, who was also elected as Councillor in the Local Election, filed a writ petition against local police. The local police as well as Assistant Commissioner who were also party in the writ petition adopted different methods to stop the said Advocate from performing his professional duties. After their failure a criminal case was registered against the Advocate with the connivance of police and the Assistant Commissioner which was found to have been actuated by the mala fide on the part of the local police and the Assistant Commissioner. Thus the registration of case was set aside by the High Court on the ground of being mala fide.
' In case reported as Muhammad Haroon and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1991 MLD 397 the F.I.R. In the case was quashed on the ground that Pakistan Railway Police had no jurisdiction to register a case because the same fell within the jurisdiction of Custom Officer under section 6 of the Customs Act. Thus it was held that recovery of about 200 Kgs. Of refined silver by the police was without jurisdiction.
' In case reported as Anwar Ahmad Khan v. The State and another 1996 SCMR 24, it has been observed that as the direction by the High Court was merely to finalise the reports within the reasonable time, it could not be said that order of the High Court was tantamount to interfere in the investigation because the direction to the concerned Police Officers was to be vigilant and finalise the investigation promptly.
' In case reported as Muhammad Haroon and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1991 MLD 397 it was observed that as vide 'notification S.R.O. 913(1)/86, dated 5-10-1986 in the Pakistan Railway Police was expressly excluded from the function of Custom Officer, it has neither jurisdiction to seize the silver or register a case against the accused. Thus proceedings initiated by police being without jurisdiction were quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
' In case reported as Brig. (Retd.) Imitaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 2142 it has been held that judicial review must remain. Strictly in its bounds and Judges should not exercise the writ jurisdiction to interfere in the matter regarding the registration of a criminal case.
6. We have given the consideration to the matter. It is well-settled, principle of law that High Court cannot interfere in the investigation by the police initiated in consequence of registration of a criminal case. It is evident from the case-law cited on behalf of the appellant that there is ample authorities in support of the aforesaid proposition. Out of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, referred to above, two cases in which the proceedings were quashed by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction are distinguishable because in those cases the jurisdiction to investigate into the matter was that of concerned Custom Officers and not the police. Thus the said authorities do not help the case of the respondent. So far as the case reported as Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, Advocate v. Assistant Commissioner and others 1989 PCr.LJ 558 is concerned it was found that the Assistant Commissioner and Local police were inimical to the accused petitioner who was an Advocate due to the fact that he had filed a writ petition against them which was accepted and certain proceedings were initiated against them. Thereafter a false criminal case was got registered by the said authorities against the Advocate so as to deter him from carrying on his professional duties. It is also evident from the report of the case that various attempts were made by the Assistant Commissioner and Police that the concerned Advocate should not accept brief in the case against them but they failed in their attempt. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner and the police got a false criminal case registered against the said Advocate. It was in the aforesaid circumstances that the High Court quashed the proceedings in the said case. Irrespective of the view taken by the High Court in the aforesaid case, we are of the view that the High Court has no jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings at the stage of investigation or thereafter as has been held in number of cases, referred to above, by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It may be further pointed out here that the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not competent to assume the role of Investigating Agency or the trial Court to give verdict as to whether an accused person has committed an offence or not. It is for the ordinary Court to decide the matter under the relevant law.
' In the light of what has been stated, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct that the criminal case against the accused respondents dismissed in consequence of the judgment of the High Court shall be restored by the concerned Court and be proceeded with according to law.