HAMID NAWAZ vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF POLICE STATION MITHA
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking the quashing of First Information Report No. 128 registered at Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab, for offences under sections 379, 440, 337-H(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court should interfere and quash an FIR at the investigation stage when the allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences and are factual in nature. The court held that since the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with definite allegations disclosing cognizable offences, and the matter is still at the investigation stage, the police have a statutory duty to investigate, and the court will not stifle this process in summary proceedings. The petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that factual disputes requiring inquiry cannot be resolved through constitutional petitions at a premature stage.
- Can the High Court quash an FIR through a constitutional petition when the allegations are purely factual in nature?
- Whether the police have a statutory duty to investigate a crime reported through an FIR disclosing cognizable offences?
- Is it appropriate for the court to interfere and stifle police investigation at a premature stage?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 2007 ' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- The requirement of filing certified copies of the relevant documents is dispensed with. Disposed of.
Writ Petition No,8072 of 2007
2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. No,128 registered at Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab on 13-7-2007 in respect of offences under sections 379/440/ 337-H(2)/34, P. P. C .
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's party is in lawful possession of the relevant property; the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. Are palpably false; and the impugned F.I.R. Is based upon distorted facts, fabricated evidence and sheer mala fide on the part of the complainant party.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the documents appended with this petition it has been observed by me that the petitioner and his co-accused stand' specifically nominated in the F.I.R. And definite allegations have been levelled against them therein.
If such allegations are accepted as correct at their face value then the same prima facie disclose commission of some cognizable offences. In these circumstances the local police had no option but to register the impugned F.I.R. And reference in this respect may be made to the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara, Cantt. And others PLD 2007 SC 539. The allegations levelled against the petitioner and his co-accused in the impugned F.I.R. Are purely factual in nature and the petitioner's rebuttal of such allegations advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner also necessarily require holding by this Court in the present summary proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. The impugned F.I.R. Is still at its investigation stage. It is a statutory duty of the police to investigate a crime reported to it and this Court would not like to scuttle or stifle the said duty of the police at such a premature stage.
5. For what has been discussed above no occasion has been found by me for interference in the matter at such a stage and this petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.