MANZOOR AHMAD and 2 others vs S.H.O. POLICE STATION FACTORY AREA, DISTRICT FAISALABAD and 2 others
This petition was filed seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 228, dated 9-7-1990, registered at Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad, under sections 406, 420, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the dispute between the parties was essentially civil in nature and that the criminal process was being misused to enforce a civil liability. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, should quash an F.I.R. based on the assertion that the underlying dispute is civil, particularly when the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. The Court held that it is not the function of the High Court to investigate whether an offence has been committed, as that is the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the investigation, directing the Investigating Officer to complete the process within two months, while permitting the petitioners to present their evidence and documents to the Investigating Officer for consideration.
- Does the High Court have the authority to investigate whether an offence has been committed during proceedings for the quashment of an F.I.R.?
- Can an F.I.R. be quashed on the grounds that the underlying dispute is of a civil nature when the allegations prima facie disclose a criminal offence?
- Is the High Court empowered to direct an Investigating Officer to complete an investigation within a specific timeframe?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Petitioners seek quashment of F.I.R. No,228, dated 9-7-1990 registered against them at Police Station Factory Area, District Faisalabad under sections 406/420/506/34, P.P.C. It is claimed that in fact the parties have a dispute of civil nature and through use of criminal machinery, the complainant-respondent No,2 is attempting to enforce a civil claim.
2. In the written reply, the allegations are denied by respondent No,2, who has maintained that in fact petitioners have committed the crime as narrated in the F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that if the allegations made in the F.I.R. Remained unrebutted, a case is made out. In registering the case, therefore, the S.H.O. Cannot be said to have acted in breach of section 154, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel, however, has strenuously urged that in fact respondent No,2 is enforcing a civil liability. For this purpose, he also wanted to place on record some documents.
4. Documents were not permitted to be placed on record for the reason that it is not for this Court to investigate, whether an offence has or has not been committed. That is the job of the Investigating Officer and in the exercise of power of judicial review, this Court can compel him to do his job in accordance with law. It is regrettable that this petition is coming up for final hearing after ten years. Nevertheless, it is not in public interest to kill investigation of offences.
5. I would, therefore, decline interference and dispose of this petition with the direction to the Investigating Officer to try to complete the investigation within two months. No order as to costs.
Needless to add that petitioners will have to be associated in the investigation and the evidence/ documents, they want to produce in this Court can be produced before the Investigating Officer.