MUAZ AHMAD vs Haji MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others

' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Short question involved in this petition is whether the High Court was legally justified in ordering quashment of F.I.R. Without affording an opportunity of hearin2 to the petitioner, who was complainant /first informant in No,4/ of 2004, dated 5-4-2004 registered against private respondents under the provisions of sections 409, 406, 509/34, P.P.C.

2. Precise facts appear to be that the petitioner got registered F.I.R. Against respondents-Haji Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Samreen Shahzad in relation to the commission of cognizable offences at Police Station Balak, District Faisalabad. During investigation, respondents filed a Constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court for quashment of F.I.R. On variety of grounds.

Notice was issued to Advocate-General, Punjab. On the date of hearing, an Additional Advocate- General appeared before the Court and made statement that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.

Could not be proved, occurrence had been found to be false and a cancellation report of the F.I.R.

Has been drawn up. On such statement, learned Judge, in Chambers of the Lahore High Court proceeded to direct quashment of the petition without realizing that the complainant, who was arrayed as party to the writ petition was neither put on notice nor called upon to explain his point of view.

2-A. An application for review of the order moved by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 7-4-2005. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against both the aforesaid orders.

3. We have heard Chaudhry M. Abdus Saleem, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Rab Nawaz Noon, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, who has entered appearance on caveat on behalf of private respondents. From the record it is evident that petitioner-complainant was never heard by the High Court while quashing the proceedings arising out of F.I.R. High Court order refusing to review the order made earlier does not show whether petitioner was put on notice on earlier occasion. Mr. Noon points out that the petitioner had also filed an Intra-Court Appeal before a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court against both the orders, which was dismissed as being incompetent.

4. Upon hearing both the learned counsel and careful consideration of the point, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed serious error of law by passing and adverse order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who was an aggrieved person before the law enforcing agencies. In this manner, he was seriously prejudiced and the golden principles of natural justice appear to have been offended.

5. We would, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and while allowing the same set aside both the orders of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for hearing of the writ petition afresh strictly on merits and without being prejudiced by the observations in the earlier order as well as those by the I.C.A. Bench.