Haji Rauf Ali Vs D.P.O D.I Khan etc

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

W.P. No.325-D/2017.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 05.7.2017.

Appellant-Petitioner Haji Rauf and others by Mr. Ahmad Ali Khan Advocate

Respondent District Police Officer D.I.Khan by Mr. Adnan Ali Khan AAG for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Ehsanullah Advocate for respondent No.4.

MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN, J.- Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners seek cancellation/quashment of FIR No.320 dated 08.4.2017 under Sections 403/406/420/468 PPC Police Station Cantt, D.I.Khan registered against them on the complaint of complainant of respondent No.4.

2.We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, A.A.G. representing the Imran/*

State and perused the record appended with the petition.

3.Perusal of record reveals that respondent No.4 submitted an application to SHO Police Station Cantt, D.I.Khan to the effect that vide Wasiqa No.1676 dated 19.9.1996, petitioner No.1 was owner in possession of shops No.1, 2 and 3 situated in Spin Zar Market, D.I.Khan and sold the same to one Yahya Hussain through Wasiqa No.1078 dated 21.5.2013 and Wasiqa No.1079 dated 21.5.2013. Petitioner No.1, while committing fraud, again alienated the same shops to petitioner No.2 vide Wasiqa No.2415 dated 14.11.2016 and Wasiqa No.3240 dated 22.11.2016. The report of respondent No.4/complainant was entered in daily diary No.22 dated 09.02.2017, enquiry under Section 156(iii) Cr.PC was conducted and finally above referred FIR was registered.

Imran/*

4.While going through the contents of the F.I.R. and record appended with the petition, one could find no infirmity legal or otherwise, or any jurisdictional defect, which could justify this Court to interfere in the matter under Article 199 of the Constitution. In case titled, "Doctor Ghulam Mustafa Vs. The State" reported as (2008 SCMR 76), the apex Court held that High Court has no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to take the role of investigation agency and to quash the F.I.R., while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution, unless and until very exceptional circumstance exists.

5.Even otherwise, respondent No.4/ complainant has come up with certain allegations and justice demands that he may be given an opportunity to prove the same. However, alternate remedy in the shape of application under sections 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C, as the case may be, is available to the petitioners when the trial Imran/*

commenced. In case titled, "Ghulam Muhammad Vs. Muzammal Khan" reported as (PLD 1967 S.C. 317), the apex Court held that remedy of quashment of proceedings is not available, when alternate remedy is available in the shape of 265- K or 249-A, Cr.P.C. Ref: PLD 1992 S.C. 353, 2006 SCMR 276, 2006 SCMR 1192 and 2008

SCMR 76.

6.Argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 challenged the vires of Wasiqa No.1078 by filing civil suit which is pending adjudication, cannot help them because the law provides that criminal and civil proceedings can run parallel.

7.In view of the above, finding no merits and substance in the petition under consideration, it is hereby dismissed.

Announced.

Dt:05.7.2017.

JUDGE

Imran/*

JUDGE

Imran/*