MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 3 others vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UGGOKI, TEHSIL

' This petition is moved under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for abashment of F.I.R. No,599, dated 17-9-1998 registered at Police Station Uggoki, District Sialkot under section 379/440, P.P.C. At the report of Muhammad Siddique respondent No,2.

2. The brief facts are that the aforesaid Muhammad Siddique got a case registered for an occurrence which took place at about 3-00 p.m. On 16-9-1998. In this regard, it was contended that he had cultivated the "Charri" and Millet in Khasra Nos.240 and 250 respectively. On the day of occurrence, he was present at the shop that one Rasheed P.W. Informed him that the petitioner alongwith others while armed with fire-arms had cut the aforesaid crop and had removed the same to their "Dera" on a donkey cart. Thereafter, at about 2-00 a.m. In the night, they ploughed the land aforesaid with the tractor and destroyed the remaining crop growing over there. The complainant aforesaid contacted the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid occurrence, whereupon, they hurled filthy abuses and ran after him while armed with "Dandas" and also threw stones upon him besides making fire. The noise raised by the complainant attracted his co- villagers and as such, he was saved.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have contended that they were in possession of Khasra No,246 in Village Dogra Khurd, District Sialkot but during the consolidation process, the aforesaid Khasra No,246 was converted into Khasra No,250 and out of which, 9 Marlas of the land was given to the complainant i,e, respondent No,2 but the possession allegedly continued with the present petitioner/accused. The transfer of the aforesaid 9 Marla's was challenged by the present petitioners in appeal which was allegedly pending before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala. It was, therefore, contended that since the aforesaid land was still in possession of the petitioners, therefore, no offence was committed particularly when the appeal was pending against the aforesaid transfer. However, later on, respondent No,2 i,e, the complainant allegedly got a forged Khasra Girdawari showing his possession over the suit land. It was alleged that the present F.I.R. Was lodged on the basis of the aforesaid forged Khasra Girdawari. As such, it was contended that in fact no crime was ever committed as the petitioners were in possession of the transferred land and the F.I.R. To that extent was liable to be quashed.

4. The Inspector who has brought the record has contended that the allegation of forgery about Khasra Girdawari is yet to be determined during the investigation of the case. However, the investigation could not make any further headway because the D.S.P. Who was investigating the case was out of country being on leave. It was further submitted that in the present situation, it was premature to say that the contents of the F.I.R. Did not make out any case against the petitioners under section 379/440, P.P.C.

5. I have considered the foregoing facts and find that some questions of facts have been raised such as transfer of the property in the name of the complainant/respondent No,2 during the consolidation process and also that his possession over the suit land was wrongly shown in the Revenue Record, which was alleged to be bogus according to the version of the petitioners.

6. The factual questions raised above cannot be undertaken nor can be properly decided in the writ jurisdiction. Hence it cannot be said that no criminal case is made out at this stage in the light of the facts contained in the F.I.R. This question can only be properly determined during the investigation of the case which is in progress. As such, there is no ground for quashing the F.I.R. In dispute. The investigation in such like cases should be allowed to take 8 its usual course in order to come to a conclusion whether or not any offence has been committed by the offenders cited therein. Even otherwise, criminal investigation should not be stifled or killed during the incubation or infancy as it C would be against the principles governing the administration of justice. It is, however, observed that the Investigating Officer shall keep in view the provisions contained in section 173, Cr.P.C. To submit the interim or final report to the Court concerned within a period specified therein if the petitioners are found guilty during the investigation. It is pointed out that the investigation has been held up as the Investigating Officer (D.S.P.) is out of the country. As such, to avoid further delay, the S.P., Sialkot is directed to entrust the investigation to some other senior Police Officer of proven integrity.

7. The petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed with the above observations.