Naeem Ahmed Versus State
Order
Ali Baig, C.J .--- Through this single judgment I intend to dispose of the above cited two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions bearing Nos. 576/2025 and 575/2025 as the same are outcome of one and the same occurrence which have been filed by the present petitioner/accused for quashment of FIRs Nos. 27/2013 and 32/2013 registered at Police Station City Gilgit.
2. Briefly the facts of the case as reflected in the FIR are that on 25-02-2013 at about 1330 hours during a quarrel between two parties at Tehsil Office Gilgit, the present petitioner/accused had opened ineffective fires on one namely Wahid and accordingly on the Murasila of the complainant namely Nadeem Hussain the then SIP P.S City Gilgit had registered the instant FIR bearing No. 27/2013. The concerned SHO after registration of aforesaid FIR started investigation and arrested the petitioner/accused and during investigation the concerned SHO P.S City Gilgit recovered .30 bore pistol from the possession of petitioner/accused and also registered another criminal case bearing FIR No. 32/2013 for offence under section 13 Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 against the petitioner/accused at Police Station City Gilgit.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the petitioner/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the FIRs have been registered in the year, 2013 whereas challan of the case has yet not been submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction despite lapse of more than 12 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that it is settled principle of law that fair and speedy trial is fundamental right of the petitioner/accused and he has been deprived from his said due right. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that due to pending of criminal case the petitioner/accused has failed to obtain character certificate from concerned Police Station to travel abroad. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that prosecution as well as the complainant have lost interest in prosecuting of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the offences reflected in the FIR do not attract as no person has received any bullet injury. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that prosecution has failed to collect sufficient material against the petitioner/accused to link him with alleged commission of offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that prosecution has violated the mandatory provisions of section 173, Cr.P.C as such the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted by quashing the FIRs. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that there is no probability of conviction of accused/petitioner if full-fledge trial is conducted/held. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused lastly submitted that by accepting this petition the FIRs bearing Nos. 27/2013 and 32/2013 registered at P.S City Gilgit may be quashed to meet the ends of justice.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional A.G controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused by contending that the accused/petitioner is directly nominated in the FIR with specific role. The learned Additional A.G further submitted that the accused/petitioner can file an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C before the court of competent jurisdiction and without exhausting the lower forum the qwuashment application before this court is not maintainable. The learned Additional A.G further submitted that challan of the case can be submitted at any time as the life of FIR is 60 years. The learned Additional A.G lastly submitted that both the petitions are not maintainable at this stage hence, dismissed in the interest of justice.
5. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly FIR No. 27/2013 under sections 148, 147, 160, 427, 337-F, 337-A, 324/34, P.P.C was registered at Police Station City Gilgit against the present petitioner/accused on 25-02-2013 and FIR bearing No. 32/2013 was registered under section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 against the petitioner/accused on 03-03-2013 at Police Station City Gilgit at the instance of one Razi Ullah SIP. Despite lapse of more than 12 years of the registration of the aforesaid FIRs, the prosecution has failed to submit challan of the case of the petitioner/accused in the court of competent jurisdiction for trial of the petitioner/accused, whereas under the provisions of section 173, Cr.P.C the SHO concern is duty bond to submit challan in the court of competent jurisdiction within maximum 17 days of the recording of FIR, but the prosecution has miserably failed to comply with the aforementioned mandatory provisions of law.
7. On the previous date of hearing the SHO P.S City Gilgit and Mr. Nadeem Hussain SIP complainant of case FIR No. 27/2013 were called and they appeared before this court on 09-12-2025 and frankly admitted that challan/final police report has yet not been submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction and case file is still lying in P.S City Gilgit and they failed to explain the reason of delay in submission of challan in the court.
8. It is a universal principle of law that a speedy trial is right of every accused person, therefore, unnecessary delay in trial of such cases would amount to denial of justice to the accused. Accused/petitioner cannot wait for trial for indefinite period.
9. From the conduct of prosecution it can be safely inferred that the prosecution has failed to collect sufficient evidence against the accused/petitioner, therefore, the prosecution has not submitted the challan of the case in the court within stipulated period. Thus, the petitioner/accused has successfully made out a case for quashment of FIRs.
10. As the sequel of the facts and circumstances culminated supra, these petitions are accepted and impugned FIRs bearing No. 27/2013 registered under sections 148, 147, 160, 427, 337-F, 337-A, 324/34 dated 25-02-2013 and FIR bearing No. 32/2013 dated 03-03-2013 registered under section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 are hereby quashed and the petitioner/accused is discharged of the charges mentioned above. The alleged recovered 30 bore pistol bearing No. 4486 is hereby confiscated in favour of state. Certified true copy of this order be placed on the file Cr. Misc. No. l575/2025. The above mentioned Cr. Misc. Petitions bearing Nos. 575/2025, 576/2025 and Cr. Misc. No. 584/2025 stand disposed of accordingly. File.
JK/13/GB Petitions allowed.