This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on the plea that F.I.R. No,341 of 2003 was registered on 5-8-2003 against them in Police Station Shorkot City under sections 392/109, P.P.C. On the complaint of respondent No,3. The petitioners seek quashment of the F.1 .R. Aforesaid on the grounds mentioned in para. No,2 of the petition and it has been prayed by them that the F.I.R.
Aforesaid may be quashed and the respondents may be restrained from harassing the petitioners.
2. The brief facts are that Zafar lqbal Bhangoo, Advocate Shorkotwho is the complainant in this case lodged the F.1.R. In Police Station Shorkot City on the plea that on 20-3-2003 he purchased Sohrab Motorcycle No,JGC-3427 from Ch. Muhammad Siddique, Advocate for an amount of Rs,40,000 and the Motorcycle was handed over to him. However, it was promised that registration book etc. Shall be delivered to him after two days. However, subsequently Ch. Muhammd Siddique with a mala fide intention transferred the said Motorcycle to Muhammad Arshad son of Akbar AN on 30-4-2003. Without returning to him the amount of Rs,40,000 Ch. Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Arshad asked him to return the Motorcycle. On the day of occurrence i,e, on 5-8-2003 while his Motorcycle was parked in front of his Chamber, around 2-15 p.m., the complainant alongwith Mazhar Abbas Khan, Advocate, Zahoor Hussain Clerk and Muhammad Aslam Khan Baloch was sitting in the Chamber when Ghulam Abbas, Abdul Jabbar and Master Muhammad lqbal entered his Chamber. Muhammad lqbal drew out a rifle while Ghulam Abbas pointed a pistol at his chest and demanded the key of Motorcycle which he handed over to them. The accused threatened that if he will raise alarm, he will be killed. Ghulam Abbas started his Motorcycle while Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad lqbal sat behind him on the rear seat and they drove away the Motorcycle. Later, on the same day the matter was reported to the Police.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioner No,1 had purchased the Motorcycle in question for an amount of Rs,40,000 from one Muhammad Siddique son of Bashir Ahmad and he is in possession of the said Motorcycle since the aforesaid date. The Motorcycle was registered in his name on 30-4-2003 with Motor Registration Authority, Jhang. He has argued that even if the contents of the F.I.R. Are assumed to be true, even then no case is made out against the petitioners. He has submitted that respondent No,3 was having enmity with Muhammad Siddique from whom petitioner No,1 had purchased the Motorcycle and they were involved in a series of social and political controversies and that there is not an iota of evidence to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence and that the allegations against the petitioners are false and frivolous and the case is the result of mala fide intention of the complainant and that sections 392/109, P.P.C. Are not attracted in this case. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the cases Muhammad Abid and others v. Nusrat Ali 2000 PCr.LJ 1847 (Lahore); Mst. Gulnaz Bibi v. Mian Muhammad Younas, S.-I. And 2 others 2003 M LD 1608, Muhammad Saleem v. Deputy Director, F.I.A./CBC Multan and another 2000 M LD 357 (Lahore), Mst. Sabai and another v. The State and others 1988 PCr.LJ 1429 (Lahore), Nazia Parveen and others v. S.H.O. And others .2000 SD 122, Abdul Aziz Sattar alias Abdul Aziz Abdul Sattar v.
Khawaja Muhammad Ashraf and another PLD 1965 Dacca 315 and Sharif and 3 others v. The State 1972 PCr.LJ 94 (Lahore).
4. From the other side, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No,3 has argued that it is a fit case for quashment of the F.I.R. And that the occurrence has taken place in Shorkot Kutchery where a number' of Lawyers were present and that the registration of F.I.R. Was not based on any mala fide intention nor the investigation of the said case is an abuse of process of law. He has argued that at this stage it cannot be said that this case has no chance of success or the same is without any lawful basis.
5. 1 have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides. In my view the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not attracted to the facts of this case. It is not a case of nonobservance of some legal formality and hence Muhammad Saleem's case (supra) is not attracted. Mst. Sabai's case (supra) relates to a case registered under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and wherein a lady who was a sui juris, claimed to have married a person of her own choice. The said authority is based on altogether different facts. Nazia Parveen's case (supra) is also not attracted in this case as in the instant case, F.I.R. On the face of it, does not show that the allegations are frivolous. Gulnaz Bibi's case (supra) relates to a case under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and according to the facts of the case, the alleged abductee had herself controverted the allegations contained in the F.I.R.
6. In order to quash an F.I.R. And the proceedings initiated on its basis, the Court has also to consider whether the F.1.R. On the face of it is frivolous and whether the allegations as contained in the petition do not constitute an offence even if the same are assumed to be correct. The Court has also to see whether allowing the proceedings to continue on the basis of such F.I.R. Would be an abuse of process of law and in order to succeed a petitioner has to show that he cannot be convicted even if the allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Are accepted as correct.
7. In this case the position is that the investigation is underway. The contents of the F.I.R. Do not indicate that even if the contents of the F.I.R. Are assumed to be correct, even then no case is made out against the petitioner. If as a result of investigation challan is submitted against the petitioners/accused before the competent Court, they can avail of appropriate remedy by filing an application under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. As the case may be. In the instant case, there is hardly any justification for quashing the F.I.R. And hence the petition is dismissed.