Javed Khan vs Ali Gohar Shah & others
This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had quashed First Information Report No. 5 dated 6.11.2011, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Charsada, concerning a dispute over immovable property. The appellant, acting as an attorney for the property owner, contended that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR, as the allegations and evidence presented necessitated proper investigative and judicial scrutiny rather than premature termination of proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon reviewing the matter and noting the lack of strong opposition from the respondents, allowed the appeal. The Court held that the High Court's decision to quash the FIR was unjustified because the case required a full investigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, thereby restoring the FIR, while preserving the respondents' right to pursue other legal remedies if advised, and maintaining the bail previously granted to them.
- Does an FIR concerning an immovable property dispute warrant investigative and judicial scrutiny rather than summary quashing?
- Can a High Court quash an FIR when the allegations require further investigation?
1. Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Through leave of the Court, impugned herein is judgment dated 4.11.2013, whereby a learned Judge-in-Chambers of Peshawar High Court proceeded to quash First Information Report No.5 dated 6.11.2011 registered with Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Charsada. The controversy revolves around a dispute over immovable property; it was set off by Javed Khan, appellant being attorney of the owner.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is in a unison with the appellant to maintain that there was hardly an occasion for the learned Judge to quash the First Information Report structured upon allegations/evidence that warranted investigative as well as judicial scrutiny. Learned counsel for the respondent has not faced the appellant or the learned Law Officer with much enthusiasm and instead prays for opportunity to re-agitate the plea before appropriate forums at the relevant time.
3. Criminal appeal is allowed, impugned judgment dated 4.11.2013 by the learned Judge-in-Chambers is set aside, while keeping respondents' options wide open to re-agitate their plea, if so advised; bail granted to them shall hold field.