MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 2 others vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION, HUJRA SHAH
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the F.I.R. was a counterblast to a previous case registered by the petitioner against the complainant and was motivated by ulterior motives to harass and pressurize the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could quash an F.I.R. based on allegations of falsehood and mala fides when disputed questions of fact were involved. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that it could not assume the role of an investigating officer to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed the principle that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact within its constitutional writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the request for quashment was rejected as the matter required investigation rather than judicial intervention at the preliminary stage.
- Can the High Court quash an F.I.R. in its constitutional jurisdiction when the case involves disputed questions of fact?
- Is it the function of the High Court to determine the truth or falsity of an F.I.R. during writ proceedings?
- Does the existence of a counter-case automatically justify the quashment of an F.I.R.?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R.
No, 223 of 2009 dated 15-5-2009 registered under section 379, P.P.C. In Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem at the instance of Nadeem-ul-Hassan Naseem complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. Was got registered against the petitioners as a counterblast as the accused party petitioner No,1 has got registered case F.I.R.
No,101 of 2009 dated 22-4-2009 under section 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Renala Khurd against the respondents No,2 along with others unknown persons; further submits that respondent No,2 got registered the impugned F.I.R. Sought to be quashed just to harass and humiliate the petitioner for ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioner for withdrawal of F.I.R. No, 101 of 2009 got registered by the petitioner against the respondent No,2 and others. Learned counsel further submits that a case vide F.I.R. No,223 of 2009 dated 15-5-2009 under section 379, P.P.C. Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, is totally false, got registered with the connivance of the local police.
The case registered against the petitioner is false or based on truth, this Court cannot assume the duty of investigating officer, whose function it is to investigate the case and dig out the truth. When a question was put to the learned counsel that honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has disapproved the quashing of F.I.R. Where disputed questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction by this Court. Learned counsel could not reply satisfactorily.
Making reliance on the judgments of honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCM R 276. In the said judgment plethora of judgments are cited on this point, where disputed questions are involved High Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed questions of facts in constitutional jurisdiction. Reference can be given of the following judgments:--
(i) Muhammad Saeed Azhar v. Martial Law Administrator Punjab and others 1979 SCM R 484, (ii)
Umar Hayat Khan v. Inayatullah Butt and others 1994 SCM R 572, (iii) Mst. Kaniz Fatima through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Salim 2001 SCM R 1493, (iv) Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Division Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others PLD 2001 SC 415 and (v) Wazir Ali Soomoro v. Water and Power Development Authority and others 2005 SCM R 37.
3. In view of these judgments, instant writ petition for quashing of F.I.R., has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.