Dr. GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE and others

ORDER

' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- Petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 13-7- 2006 and order, dated 22-3-2006 wherein the learned High Court had quashed the F.I.R. No,610 of 2002 registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala under sections 406, 468 and 471 of P.P.C. On the complaint of the petitioner.

2. The detailed facts have already been mentioned in the petition. However, necessary facts out of which the present petition arises are that the aforesaid F.I.R. Was registered against the private respondents on the complaint of the petitioner on the allegations that the respondents had sold the motor car in question to him on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The Investigating Officer investigated the case and found the private respondents guilty and challan was submitted before the competent Court. Respondent No,3 filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Before the trial Court which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order, dated 6-1- 2006. Respondent No,3 being aggrieved filed a criminal revision in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala who dismissed the same vide order, dated 6-2-2006.

' Respondent No,3 being aggrieved filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,275/M of 2006 before the Lahore High Court. The learned High Court accepted the same and proceedings initiated on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. Were quashed vide order, dated 22-3-2006. Thereafter, review petition was filed before the High Court which was also dismissed vide order, dated 13-7-2006. Hence, the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned High Court erred in law to quash the F.I.R. Merely on the statement of the Advocate-General that matter has been settled between the complainant (petitioner) and respondents Nos.3 and 4. The learned High Court had passed the impugned order without issuing a notice to the petitioner. He further maintains that all the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Are not compoundable as evident from Schedule-II of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The learned' counsel for the private respondents supported the impugned judgment and further submitted that learned High Court was justified to quash the F.I.R. In question as the matter was settled between the parties outside the Court.

5. The learned Law Officer has supported the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. ##ST##We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is a settled law that our constitution is based on trichotomy. The Courts have right to interpret the law and the High Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to take the role of the investigating agency. There are several pronouncements of this Court that learned High. Court has no jurisdiction to quash the F.I.Rs, while exercising constitutional power under Article 199 of the Constitution or section 561-A of Cr.P.C. Unless and until there are very exceptional circumstances existed. It is also a settled proposition of law that judgments of this Court are binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. The learned High Court had decided the case in violation of the mandatory provisions of Cr.P.C. After the enforcement of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, offences affecting the human body as dealt with, under Chapter XVI i.e, sections 299 to 338-H have been made compoundable, their composition can be given effect as provided in section 445, Cr.P.C. At any stage. As mentioned above, the offences in the impugned F.I.R. Are not B compoundable, therefore, learned High Court was not justified to quash the F.I.R. In question. By accepting the constitutional petition the learned High Court erred in law to short circuit the normal procedure of law as provided by law while exercising equitable jurisdiction which is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements.

Reference can be made to the B following judgments:-- ##ST##

(i) Habib Ahmad's case PLD 1992 SC 353, (ii) Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem's case 2006 SCM R 1192 (iii)

Col. Shah Sadiq's case 2006 SCM R 276.

7. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is converted into appeal which is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned S.H.O. And the trial Court for information and necessary action in accordance with law.