MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ. vs RAMZAN and 4 others
This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a petition filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 121 registered under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Band Korai, D.I. Khan. The core legal question concerns whether an F.I.R. containing allegations of a cognizable offence can be quashed without proper investigation and trial when the contents are contested as false and frivolous. The court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence requiring proper investigation, inquiry, and the recording of pro and contra evidence by a court of competent jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere to quash an F.I.R. under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. where the initial report discloses a cognizable offence that warrants investigation and evidentiary adjudication during trial.
- Can an F.I.R. be quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. when it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence?
- Whether the High Court can evaluate pro and contra evidence for the quashment of an F.I.R. without a proper trial and investigation?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Through the instant petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Mushtaq, has sought the quashment of F.I.R. No,121 dated 24-9- 2012 registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. At Police Station Band Korai D.I.Khan, mainly on the ground that the contents of the F.I.R. Ibid are totally false and frivolous.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that this petition for quashment of the F.I.R. In question is based on sound reasons and, as such, the F.I.R. Ibid is liable to be quashed being baseless and frivolous.
3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State assisted by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 opposed the petition and arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of it on the ground that since a cognizable offence has allegedly been committed by the petitioner which requires proper investigation, enquiry and pro and contra evidence in the court of competent jurisdiction.
3(sic) After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner because the complainant/respondent No,1 in his initial report has alleged the commission of a cognizable offence allegedly committed by the petitioner which cannot be adjudicated upon without proper investigation and enquiry on the part of the local police and recording pro and contra evidence in the court of competent jurisdiction.
4. As such, without dilating upon the merits of the case, so that it may not prejudice the case of either party during trial, I find no substance in this quashment petition, hence the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Reliance is placed on the case law/dictom laid down by the honourble apex court in the judgments reported as Bashir Ahmad v. Zafer-ul-Islam (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 298) and Sher Afghan Khan Niazi v. All Habib and others (2011 SCM R 1813).