HAZOOR BUX and 5 others vs S.I.O. POLICE STATION KHANPUR MAHAR and 3
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 151 of 2010 registered under sections 118, 143, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khanpur Mahar. During the pendency of the petition, the police challan was submitted before the trial court. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings after the submission of a challan and taking of cognizance, or direct the petitioners to seek an alternate remedy before the trial court. Relying on binding precedents of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that once a challan has been submitted and cognizance taken, the appropriate remedy is before the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the question of guilt or innocence cannot be determined in constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide a quashment application within three weeks.
- Can the High Court quash an FIR in its constitutional jurisdiction after the challan has been submitted and cognizance taken by the trial court?
- Is Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a more efficacious and appropriate remedy when a challan has already been submitted?
- Can the question of guilt or innocence of an accused be decided by the High Court in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction?
- Section 118, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 143, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 120-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition, petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No.151 of 2010 registered with Police Station Khanpur Mahar under sections 118, 143, 120-B, P.P.C. During pendency of this petition, challan has been. Submitted. This Court put specific question to the counsel for petitioner that in view of the fact that challan has already been submitted petitioner may seek remedy before the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel argued that in view of the decision reported in 2000 SCM R 122 this court can quash -the proceedings if there is no probability that the accused could be convicted on the material that has come on record.
3. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, learned State Counsel has argued that in the case of Muhammad Abbassi.v. SHO Bara Kahu and 7 others reported in PLD 2010 SC 969 where three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that when the challan has been submitted and cognizance has been taken by the trial Court then there is alternate remedy under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Which is more efficacious, appropriate and beneficial and the question of guilt or innocence could not be decided in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction as such function falls within the jurisdictional domain of the court concerned before which the entire evidence is to be scrutinized which cannot be done in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Learned State Counsel also relied in the case of Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others reported in 2006 SCM R 1192.
4. As the judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on us. We are of the view that let the matter be decided by the trial Court. We, however; direct the trial Court to decide quashment application within a period of three weeks from today. Let such application be filed within three days.
With these directions, this petition stands disposed of.