SHEHZAD KARIM vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION LOHARI GATE, LAHORE and 2 others
This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking the quashment of a First Information Report registered for various offences including sections relating to the Pakistan Penal Code, Maintenance of Public Order, and the Anti-Terrorism Act. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could quash an F.I.R. and resolve disputed questions of fact when the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. and the challan had already been submitted before the trial court. The court held that the petition was without force and dismissed it, noting that disputed questions of fact cannot be undertaken in constitutional jurisdiction, and further observing that the prayer for quashment had become redundant as applications under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act were already pending adjudication before the trial court. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not resolve disputed questions of fact or deflect the ordinary course of trial through its constitutional jurisdiction when a challan has been submitted and trial proceedings are underway.
- Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction while considering the quashment of an F.I.R.?
- Whether a constitutional petition for the quashment of an F.I.R. is maintainable after the challan has been filed in the trial court?
- Does the pendency of an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure render a petition for quashment of F.I.R. redundant?
- Section 16, West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Ordinance 1960
- Section 123-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 124-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 188, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 23, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No,251, dated 29- 10-2004 for offences under sections 16, MPO, 123-A, 124-A, 147, 148, 188, P.P.C. And section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act registered at Police Station Lohari Gate, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with 18 other persons was arrested by the complainant Javaid Iqbal, S.-I./S.H.O. Police Station Lohari Gate for taking out a procession in violation of the ban imposed by the Government in the said respect.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the F.I.R. Was totally false and frivolous and based on mala fide intention of the complainant; that the offence under section 124-A was a non- cognizable offence and F.I.R. In respect thereof could not be registered or investigated without prior permission of the Magistrate; that section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was subsequently added, does not attract to the facts of the case; that similarly section 16, MPO was also not attracted to the case of the petitioner and lastly contended that there was no material against the petitioner as per the F.I.R. Regarding the aforesaid allegations.
4. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate-General and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1/complainant argued that the petitioner along with others was arrested at the spot while participating in an illegal procession; that the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Were fully attracted to the case of the petitioner who was nominated therein and had actively participated in the said occurrence; that after thorough investigation the petitioner was found to be fully involved in the crime mentioned in the F.I.R. And that since the challan had been filed in the trial Court as such the writ petition was not maintainable.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And serious allegations have been levelled against him and others in the F.I.R. Which have been denied by the petitioner, thus, the controversy essentially pertains to disputed questions of fact which exercise cannot be undertaken while exercising constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It would be appropriate to refer to the latest pronouncement by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCM R 276 wherein it has been observed by the Honourable apex Court that the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction cannot resolve disputed questions of fact and that the ordinary course of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected.
6. During the course of arguments it has transpired that the application of the petitioner filed under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. As well as under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act seeking transfer of case to a regular Court are pending adjudication before the learned trial Court as such the prayer made by the petitioner for quashment of the F.I.R. Has become redundant.
7 .For what has been discussed above, the petition being without any force is dismissed.