Aurangzeb Vs SHO

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

FORM “A”

FORM OF ORDER SHEET.

Court of .................................................. Case No.................................................. Serial No of Date of Order or Order or other proceedings with Signature of judge or Magistrate and that order or Proceeding of parties or counsel where necessary proceeding

WP No.3823-P/14.

Present:- Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khan Advocate, for petitioner.

ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J:- Through instant petition, the petitioner seeks Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, praying that:- “on acceptance of this Writ Petition, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to Quash: all the acts done, proceedings taken, orders made and initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners through registration of FIR No.459 dated 2.12.2014 under section 420/468/471 PPC, P.S. Saddar District Mardan, by respondent No.1 to secure the ends of justice.

Direct: the respondents to act strictly in accordance with law

on the subject.

Grant: Special Costs to the petitioner and any other relief, not specifically asked for, which flowing from the instant petition and inevitable in the interest of justice.”

2.In essence, the petitioner while driving Motorcar bearing registration No.4595/LR, accompanied by one Naeem Khan, was intercepted by local police of P.S. Saddar Mardan, and on search huge quantity of arms & ammunitions were recovered from the said vehicle, which led to registration of FIR No.107 dated 8.3.2014, u/s 15/16 AA/ 7 ATA/16 MPO/ 120-B/122 PPC. However during trial, petitioner alongwith co-accused were acquitted from the charges leveled against them by learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 29.8.2014. Lateron another criminal case vide FIR No.459 dated 2.12.2014, u/s 420/468/471 PPC was registered against the petitioner and co-accused, which the petitioner has assailed before this Court through instant Constitution petition.

Arguments heard and available record perused.

3.Perusal of record reveals that initially petitioner was charged in case FIR No.107 for carrying/transporting/smuggling huge quantity of arms and ammunitions wherein he was acquitted alongwith co-accused by the learned trial Court but the instant case has been registered vide FIR No.459 dated 2.12.2014, u/s 420/468/471 PPC, which is a separate case though having a little link with the former case but it is at initial stage and quashing of the same at this stage would be premature and also interference in the powers of trial Court who could better determine the guilt or innocence of petitioner. Admittedly petitioner has been acquitted in the former case and obtained Bail Before Arrest in the latter case so on mere assertion of petitioner regarding his innocence, the FIR registered against him, cannot be quashed especially when the case is at initial stage and requires recording of evidence about the guilt or innocence of petitioner for which the best forum is trial Court

and if the petitioner is found innocent then he would definitely be acquitted of the charges leveled against him and in case of his acquittal, he has also the remedy of filing damage suit etc, against the concerned officials.

4.Apart from above, it is well settled principle of law that High Court cannot interfere in the investigation by the police initiated in consequence of registration of a criminal case nor quash criminal proceedings at the stage of investigation or thereafter. Besides when a criminal case is registered against an accused person, the matter is to be decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction and no writ lies in such cases. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not competent to assume the role of Investigating Agency or the trial Court to give verdict as to whether an accused person has committed an offence or not. It is for the ordinary Court to decide the matter under the relevant law. The question of malafide if any, on the part of local police requires factual investigation which could not be undertaken by the High Court in exercise of its writ

jurisdiction.

5.For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition being without substance is dismissed.

Announced.

JUDGE

JUDGE

“A.Qayum”