MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SHALIMAR, ISLAMABAD and another
This constitutional petition challenged the registration of an F.I.R. under sections 420, 468, 471, 380, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing that a pending civil suit regarding the same subject matter precluded the initiation of criminal proceedings. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash an F.I.R. when a parallel civil suit is pending. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the existence of a civil suit does not automatically bar criminal proceedings, as the objectives of civil and criminal law are distinct. The Court emphasized that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved through constitutional jurisdiction, as they require evidence and cross-examination. The principle laid down is that the High Court should not interfere with the investigation or trial process under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when prima facie allegations of an offence exist, as the petitioner has adequate alternate remedies available during the trial, such as seeking acquittal under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the pendency of a civil suit automatically bar the registration of an F.I.R. regarding the same subject matter?
- Can the High Court quash an F.I.R. based on disputed questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is the High Court the appropriate forum to evaluate evidence and documents that have not yet been subjected to cross-examination during a trial?
- Does the existence of an alternate remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction to quash an F.I.R.?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J.---This writ petition challenges the lodging of F.I.R. No,50, dated 24-1-2011, under sections 420, 468, 471, 380. and 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station A Shalimar, Islamabad, on the ground that a civil suit on the same subject is pending between the parties, therefore, the criminal case could not have been registered, before the disposal of civil case.
2. The brief facts are that the complainant/respondent No,2, a resident of England who visited Pakistan on 31-10-2010 and stayed with Raja Zalar, who is known to him, As per complaint, the complainant besides other luggage was also having a briefcase, containing valuable documents regarding the allotment letters of plots at National Police Foundation, with him. It is further alleged that during his stay the original allotment letters were stolen away and the complainant without realizing it, left back for England on 17-11-2010, where he was telephonically informed on 28-12-2010 that his plots are being sold in the market. He verified the facts from National Police Foundation and came ' to know that the plots are being sold on the basis of a power of attorney, submitted by Muhammad Ishtique. The complainant informed the NPF about the fraud and came back to Pakistan on 2-1-2011, where it was verified that the forged power' of attorney was executed fraudulently, therefore, the said F.I.R. was lodged.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No,1 had already filed -a suit for the cancellation of General Power of Attorney and cancellation of the process of the transfers of the plots and, therefore, on the same set of claim separate criminal case could not have been lodged.
4. Conversely, learned counsel 'for the respondent submitted that the purpose of criminal law is to punish the culprits while the civil suit is regarding the compensation of loses and further restraining the actions on the basis of fraud and forgery. He submitted that both actions are independent in nature and though they go hand in hand, yet the fact remains that the intent and purposes of both the proceedings are different and me results of these proceedings would also he independent of each other. He also argued that there are disputed question of facts, which cannot be resolved in the constitutional jurisdiction. He relied upon the ease laws reported in 2006 SCM R 1192, 1993 SCM R 2177, PLD 1985 SC 134 and PL 2007 SC 48.
5. Heard and record perused.
6. The facts emerging out of the arguments and 'the available material show that there were serious allegations and if prima facie an offence has been committed, ordinary courts of trial before the trial court, should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction under Article,
199. In such cases, High Court has no jurisdiction to quash F.I.R. by 'appreciation of a document produced by the parties, because no document can be proved or disproved without going through the test of cross-examination or confrontation. The petitioner had got an alternate remedy to raise objections at the time of framing the charge or during the trial through an application under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.
8. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that the trichotomy of powers is delicately balanced in the Constitution should not be disturbed as each organ of the State has to decide the matters in its allotted sphere.
9. In the instant case, the F.I.R. was lodged on 24-1-2011, wherein specific allegations were levelled by a person who is residing abroad and, therefore, the allegation without the test of trial can not be taken lightly. The petitioner shall be having ample opportunities to refute the allegations before the police or the trial Court.
10.Viewing the above, I see no reason to upset the process of investigation at this stage and therefore, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.