Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner seeks quashment of case F.I.R. No,74 registered on 13-6-2002 under sections 409/411/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Lacer Kalan, District Narowal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the registration of the F.I.R. is with mala fide intention and ulterior motive by the police as case F.I.R. No,66 dated 4-6-2002 was registered at the same police station on the application of Amanat Alim under sections 332, 186 and 337-L(ii)/336- F(i)/34, P.P.C. in which allegation has been levelled against Ishtiaq Ahmad etc. and the petitioner was a witness in that F.I.R. The complainant Abdul Ghafoor Khan, A.S.I. has got lodged this case against the petitioner in order to restrain the petitioner from supporting the complainant in the said F.I.R. and the case is registered with mala fide intention and ulterior motive and is liable to be quashed. It is 'further contended that the case property was not the stolen property as is stated by the complainant but the Forest Department has received the penalty of that stolen property and has issued letter dated 17-6-2002 addressed to the Range Officer that the case be got cancelled as the stolen property is the same wood which was recovered from Ghazanfar co-accused and the petitioner is not involved in this case. It is further contended that the petitioner admittedly is a civil servant and section 409, P.P.C. is a scheduled offence and case could be registered and investigated by the Anti-Corruption Department as Eestablislunent of Anti-Corruption Rules, 1985 provides for holding of inquiry before the registration of the case against the public servant. He relies upon judgment reported as "2000 PCr.LJ 1924" and contends that the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. He also relies on "PLD 2000 Lah.164" in which this Court has held that if the registration of the case is with mala fide intention it can be quashed by this Court.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the documents attached with this petition. The petitioner has failed to show any mala fides on the part of the complainant for the false implication of the petitioner by levelling serious allegations against him for misappropriation of the Government property (stolen wood). The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this case has been registered due to the relations between Ishtiaq etc. who are accused in the earlier case are not supported by any documentary evidence and the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as this is a factual controversy which can only be resolved after the recording of the evidence and same cannot be done in writ jurisdiction. The other contention that the petitioner is innocent and the Forest Department has mentioned that the stolen property is the case property of another case is also a question of fact which can only be resolved after the recording of the evidence. Annexure `G' which has been shown by the 'learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has been sent by the earlier officer after four days after the registration of the case in order to save the skin of the petitioner which cannot be relied upon at this stage for the quashment of the F.I.R. The other ground that the local police has no jurisdiction, this matter has already been decided by this Court in "PLD 1999 Lab.
109" (Sardar Muhammad Iqbal v. the State) in which it has been held that the rules framed by the Executive Authorities will not prevail over the law and this Court in a case reported as Shafqat Hussain v. The State (2000 PCr.U. page 1995) has already held that the local police can investigate the cases against the civil servants and if the case is registered by the local police against the civil servant it cannot be quashed on this score. This is a D.B. judgment and is binding on single Bench.
As far as the decision reported in "PLD 2000 Lah. 164" is concerned there is no cavil to the proposition that this Court can quash the proceedings and can also quash the F.I.R. by exercising the powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, if the case is found baseless and no case is made out from the facts of the case or has been registered with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. No such conditions are available in this case hence this case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The petitioner has failed to show any reason for interference by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. This petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.