Form No.

HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No. Writ Petition No.3203/2014.
Muhammad Mukhtiar. Versus Station House Officer, etc.
Sr. No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of
Proceeding Proceeding parties or counsel, where necessary.

26.02.2015 Mian Tahir Iqbal Advocate for petitioner.

Malik Muhammad Bashir Lakhesir AAG with Maqbool SI

This petition has been moved for quashment of FIR

No.122 dated 26.03.2013 registered under Sections
406/506(b), PPC, at Police Station Tulamba, District
Khanewal.

2. It is case of the petitioner that he is innocent and was

falsely involved in this case with mala fides and ulterior
motive and that petitioner was not connected with the alleged
offence of misappropriation and cheating, hence, the FIR was
liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Ameerullah
V. The State” (2003 YLR 2097), “Muhammad Ashraf
Shahzad V. Statiion House Officer, etc.” (NLR 2001
Criminal 375), “Mst. Afshan Perveen V. SHO, Police Station
Qutabpur Multan and 2 others” (2004 Cr. LJ 1006), “Raja
Haq Nawaz. V. Muhammad Afzal and others” (1968 SCMR
1256), “State through Advocate-General, NWFP Peshawar
and others. V. Gulzar Muhammad and others” (1998 SCMR
873), “State of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Deputy
Attorney General for Pakistan, Karachi and another V.
Mukthar Ali Sh.” (2004 Cr. LJ 115) and “Miraj Khan V. Gull
Ahmed and 3 others” (2000 SCMR 122).
W.P. No.3203-2014. 2
M. Mukhtiar. Vs. SHO, etc.

3. Petition has been opposed by learned AAG on the

ground that investigation is yet in progress and the petitioner
is nominated in the FIR with specific allegation of criminal
breach of trust and cheating, hence, the FIR could not be
quashed.

4. Heard. Perused.

5. Record in this case shows that in the FIR present

petitioner Muhammad Mukhtiar is nominated as one of the
accused who remained associated with his co-accused and
misappropriated the amount received from the complainant.
The report submitted by the investigating agency also reveals
that co-accused of the petitioner applied for bail before the
concerned court and the case was still under investigation.
There is no cavil with the proposition that in appropriate
cases, this Court has ample authority to quash proceedings in
criminal cases but it is also well settled that Court cannot
interfere in the process of investigation.

6. In the case law cited by learned counsel for the

petitioner i.e. “State through Advocate-General, NWFP
Peshawar and others. V. Gulzar Muhammad and others”
(1998 SCMR 873), the apex Court laid down that the trial
court can acquit the accused under Section 249-A Cr. P.C and
265-K Cr. P.C, as the case may be, at any stage of the
proceedings and in the circumstances of each case, the
appropriate remedy for the accused appears to be to request
the trial court to consider their case under the provisions of
law. The trial court should thereupon apply its mind to this
aspect of the matter and in the first instance before it proceeds
further with the proceedings, shall decide whether the accused
are entitled to be acquitted in terms of section 249-A/265-K
Cr. P.C. If the accused are not held entitled to the acquittal, in
the terms aforesaid then they have right to approach the High
Court for quashment of the proceedings against them. In
W.P. No.3203-2014. 3
M. Mukhtiar. Vs. SHO, etc.

another case i.e. “Miraj Khan V. Gull Ahmed and 3 others”

(2000 SCMR 122), the same proposition came up for
consideration “whether High Court in exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 561-A Cr. P.C, had authority to quash the
proceedings in a criminal case?”. It was held that main
consideration to be kept in view would be whether the
continuance of the proceedings before the trial forum would
be futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of
Court or not---if on the basis of facts admitted and patent on
record, no offence can be made out, then it would amount to
abuse process of law to allow prosecution to continue with the
trial. In the cited case, it was case of the complainant that he
had given the amount as Qarz-e-Hasna but in the FIR, the
word “Amanat” was also added and on the basis of admitted
facts, FIR was ordered to be quashed.

7. In the case in hand, investigation is in progress.

Moreover, in the FIR, the allegation against the petitioners
and others was that the accused had received the amount on
the undertaking that they would keep it as trust and in case the
original documents of transfer deed could not be handed over
regarding the plot, the amount will be returned. On further
inquiry, it was found that accused had committed fraud as no
plot was available for transfer to the complainant and the
accused deprived him of huge amount through
misrepresentation and fraud. In another case titled “Ajmeel
Khan V. Abdul Rahim and others.” (PLD 2009 SC 102), the
same proposition came up for consideration. In the said case,
petitioner was involved in offence under Section 489-F PPC,
in which the petitioner was arrested and subsequently
enlarged on bail then he filed writ petition in the High Court
for quashment of FIR which was dismissed. The matter came
up for hearing before the apex Court in a petition seeking
leave to appeal. It was laid down in para No.6 of the judgment
as under:-
W.P. No.3203-2014. 4
M. Mukhtiar. Vs. SHO, etc.

“Needless to emphasis, that functions of the judiciary

and the police are complementary not overlapping and
the combination of individual liberty with a due
observance of law and order is only to be obtained by
leaving each to exercise its own function. If a criminal
liability is spelt out from facts and circumstances of a
particular case, accused can be tried upon a criminal
charge. Quashment of FIR during investigation
tantamounts to throttling the investigation which is not
permissible in law. However, FIR can be quashed by
High Court in its writ jurisdiction when its registration
appears to be misuse of process of law or without any
legal justification. The police are under a statutory duty
under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and have a statutory right under Section 156 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate a cognizable
offence whenever a report is made to it disclosing the
commission of a cognizable offence. To quash the
police investigation on the ground that the case is false
would be to act on treacherous grounds and would
tantamount to an uncalled for interference by the Court
with the duties of the police.”

By now it is well settled that this Court cannot stop the

investigating agency to investigate the case and collect
evidence where criminal liability is spelt out from facts and
circumstances of a particular case as quashment of FIR during
investigation would amount to throttling the investigation
which is not permissible under the law. However, if on
completion of investigation of a case, the investigating agency
concludes that evidence collected against accused, is not
sufficient to implicate him, the Magistrate concerned has
authority to order release of accused upon the report
submitted before him by the investigating officer. The
Magistrate under Section 249-A Cr. P.C has also ample
 W.P. No.3203-2014. 5
M. Mukhtiar. Vs. SHO, etc.

powers to acquit an accused at any stage of the case after

hearing the prosecutor and accused and for reasons to be
recorded if he comes to the conclusion that the charge is
groundless and there is no probability of recording conviction
against the accused. Likewise, if the case is triable by
Sessions Court, the accused can seek acquittal under Section
265-K Cr. P.C.

8. Quashment of FIR at the stage of investigation is not

contemplated under the law on the subject. In view of above
discussion, the petition in hand is found meritless and the
same is dismissed.

(CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD)

JUDGE

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

JUDGE
!mran/*