RAO MUHAMMAD YASIN Versus S.H.O., DEPALPUR
ORDER
Through this writ petition a criminal case registered against the petitioner and Mst. Bashiran vide F.I.R. No. 16/86 with P.S. Depalpur under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at the instance of respondent No.3 for commission of Zina with Mst. Bashiran is sought to be quashed, inter alia, on the grounds; that she is lawfully wedded wife of the petitioner and was never divorced by him; that the claim of respondent No.3 as to his Nikah with her after her alleged separation from the petitioner is utterly false and has been put up at the instance of the petitioner's enemy namely Syed Shakir Hussain under whom he is employed as a servant; that the Nikahkhawan did not support the respondent and according to the Nikah Registrar the Nikah was never registered. The learned counsel has further referred to the copy of the plant to show that a suit for jactitation of marriage was filed by Mst. Bashiran against the respondent which is still sub judice before the Family Court.
2. None of these arguments furnishes any basis for quashing the F.I.R. It cannot be said that from the averments made therein no criminal case is made out against the petitioner. Admittedly the matter is under investigation with the police and it is not for this Court to start a parallel inquiry under writ jurisdiction in exercise of its powers of judicial review. This Court would be loathed to intervene when the case is being investigated by the police. Reference in this) connection may be made to the following observations of the Privy Council in Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad A I R 1945 PC 18 which were quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Malik Ghulam Ahmad v. Haji Muhammad Yusuf and others P L D 1976 SC 271:
"Just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by' an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court."
3. During the course of his submissions the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the orders dated 22nd January, 1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 243 of 1986 filed by Mst. Bashiran wherein a direction was given to the S. H .O. to take into consideration the evidence produced by her as well as the present petitioner and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The order also embodied an indication that the investigation should be completed expeditiously. It is contended that these directions have gone unheeded as the Investi gating Officer has neither taken into consideration the evidence produced by the petitioner and Mst. Bashiran nor completed the investigation with the result that petitioner is being constantly harassed by the police at the instance of his adversaries which compelled him to approach this Court again, of course, for quashment of the F.I.R.
4. In view of the foregoing reasons and the precedents aforesaid, I am clear in my mind that this writ petition cannot proceed. The learned counsel has cited two rulings reported in the Pakistan Criminal Law Journal in support of his assertions but these have no bearing on the facts of the instant case. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine and I order accordingly.
5. So far as the allegations against the S.H.O. are concerned, let a direction be sent to him to submit a report before 11th October, 1986 as to why the material produced by the petitioner and Mst. Bashiran was not taken into consideration by him and investigation completed despite the expiry of a period of more than seven months from the date of the final order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 243 of 1986. The question as to whether or not any sup motu action against the S.H.O. for Contempt of Court, for ignoring the directions of the Court, is called for shall be considered in the light of the report submitted by him. This file alongwith the report shall be put up before me in the Chamber for perusal on 11th October, 1986.
S. A. /M‑766/L Dismissed in limine.