MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus D.P.O., KASUR

ORDER

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J .---Petitioner. Muhammad Mansha by way of the instant constitutional petition has sought for quashing for F.I.R. No.542 registered under sections 420,468 and 471, P.P.C. with Police Station Kanganpur, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur against him and respondents Nos.6 to 9 at the written application of respondent No.4 on 18-10-2009 and to set aside the order dated 23-11-2009, recorded by the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Chunian/respondent No.1-A.

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that respondent No.4 made an application for registration of criminal case against the persons mentioned therein including the petitioner. On the same, the above said case was registered. The petitioner has come to this Court with the instant petition seeking quashing of the F.I:R.

3. It has been argued on his behalf that he and others accused in the case are innocent; that they have committed no fraud and forgery; that the said F.I.R. against him and others is sheer result of malice of the complainant in connivance with the police; that the F.I.R. is false, baseless and counterblast to an earlier case got registered by his side; that the learned Magistrate has wrongly disagreed with the police report of his discharge from the case; and that in case the impugned F.I.R. is allowed to be continued, the same would amount to mere abuse of process of law and Court.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made on his behalf and gone through the copies of the record annexed to the petition.

5. As regards the contentions raised on his behalf for quashing of F.I.R., the same is a matter requiring inquiry or probe and providing the parties opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their respective assertions. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It would be too much to do so here at such a stage in cursory way.

6. As regards the question of disagreeing of the learned Magistrate to the police report of his discharge from the case, I find that he (learned Magistrate) has advanced reasons for the same. It has been observed by him that the accused (petitioner) is nominated in the F.I.R. and the allegation of committing fraud of huge amount has been levelled against him and thus, he did not find any ground to discharge him. Nothing perverse to the same has been urged or shown. I, therefore, see no ground to interfere with such order of the learned Magistrate. The petition, therefore, has no force and the same is dismissed in limine.

C. Ms. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010

7. As the main petition has been dismissed by this Court today, therefore, these miscellaneous petitions have lost their relevance. Hence, the same are also dismissed as having become infructuous.

H.B.T./M-237/L Petition dismissed.