JAVED IQBAL vs S.H.O. and others
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a writ petition filed under constitutional jurisdiction seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 124 of 2010 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Ahmedpur, on the allegation of criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court should interfere with police investigation and quash an F.I.R. based on a general plea of mala fide. The court held that mala fide cannot be presumed and must be established from the facts and circumstances of each case, and further that the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction will not normally scrutinize police investigation or interfere with the statutory duty of police functionaries to investigate cognizable offences and submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere with police investigations in constitutional jurisdiction, and an accused person may seek alternate remedies before a court of competent jurisdiction after submission of the challan.
- Can the High Court scrutinize the conduct and manner of police investigation in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is mala fide a matter of presumption or does it require proof in the context of facts and circumstances?
- Whether an F.I.R. registered for an offence under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be quashed on a general plea of mala fide?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---Through the instant writ petition petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No. 124 of 2010, offence under section 406, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Ahmedpur.
2. As per F.I.R. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with two other persons misappropriated Rs. 1,50,000 of the complainant and when demanded the same by the complainant he threatened to the complainant of dire consequences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the instant case was registered on the basis of mala fide.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. As to the plea of mala fide, it is suffice to observe that mala fide whether factual or legal is not a matter of presumption only. The A allegations are to be considered in the context of facts and circumstances of each case. It is the duty of the Police functionaries to take note of a cognizable offence, register the same and after due investigation submit the report to the court under section 173, Cr.P.C. Record reveals that both the parties are dagger drawn with each other. The conduct and manner of investigation is not normally to be scrutinized by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction which would amount to interference in the Police Investigation.
For the foregoing reasons, I see no force in this writ petition which is dismissed in limine. The petitioner may, if so advised, after the submission of the challan, resort to alternate remedy under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Before a court of competent jurisdiction.