Mir MUSHTAQUE vs THE STATE
This application was filed seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under Section 7-B of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, while the matter was still under police investigation. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to interfere with or quash an F.I.R. or investigation that is currently pending before the police and has not yet reached the stage of judicial proceedings. The Court held that it lacks the authority to interfere with police investigations into criminal offences. Relying on the principle established in Mst. Shahnaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balouchistan (PLD 1971 SC 677), the Court reaffirmed that the powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 do not extend to interfering with the investigative functions of the police. Consequently, the application for quashment was dismissed as the matter was still under investigation and not pending before any court.
- Does the High Court have the power to interfere with or quash an F.I.R. while the matter is still under police investigation?
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to stop an ongoing police investigation?
- Section 7-B, Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' By this application, the applicant has sought quashment of F.I.R. During the course of investigation.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the applicantion are that F.I.R. Bearing No,58 of 2001 under section 7-B of Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 has been registered at Police Station Qasimabad, Hyderabad against the applicant. The matter is under investigation.
3. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as learned A.A.-G. Were called upon to satisfy about the maintainability of the application. Mr.Zahoor Balouch learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, in support of his contention has relied upon the case of Mehraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others reported in 2000 SCM R 122.
4. ' Learned A.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the applicant and has challenged the maintainability of the application.
5. Admittedly the case arising out of F.I.R. No,58 of 2000, under section 7-B of Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 of Police Station, Qasimabad, Hyderabad is pending investigation and is not pending before any Court. Consequently this Court cannot interfere in the investigation and quash the F.I.R./Investigation. There are plethora of authorities on this aspect of the matter.
6. ' In the case of Mst. Shahnaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balouchistan reported in PLD 1971 SC 677 it was observed by the apex Court that this Court has no power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. To interfere with police investigation into the criminal offences.
7. ' The authority cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant is of no avail to his client as the same is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. ' Resultantly, the application stands dismissed alongwith listed application.