Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 11120 of 1980, heard on 5th December, 1983.
--Art. 199--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 54--First information Report--Mala fide--Quashing of F. I. R.--Complaint already pending in Court--Allegations in subsequent F.I.R. substantially same- Number of allegations in both documents, were identical but F.I.R. contained some additional allegations of serious nature--Submission that subject-matter of F.I.R. was subjudice in complaint case was repelled and petition dismissed.
A. Waheed for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
S.M. Latif Khan Khosa for Respondent No. 4.
Date of hearing: 5th December, 1983.
In the year 1973, Muhammad Siddiq petitioner was posted as Patwari, (Consolidation), Bagh Kohna, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala. The process of consolidation of holdings started in the year 1973. A land-owner, namely, Inayat son of Ali Muhammad, resident of village Bagh Kohna lodged a complaint in the Court of senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, alleging that the petitioner, through his brothers-in-law Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Arshad, had obtained Rs.1,25,000 as illegal gratification from the land-owners and had also grabbed land through 'benami' transactions vide mutations mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of para. 4 of the complaint (Annexure 'A'). The complaint was pending in the Court of the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption when Muhammad Nawaz, respondent No. 4, another aggrieved person, lodged F. I. R. No. 49, dated 3-11-1980 (Annexure 'C') with respondent No. 1 alleging that the petitioner had taken illegal gratification in the form of cash, land, animals, trees, clothes, ghee and other things. The details of the mutations are mentioned in the F.I.R., Annexure 'C'. The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition praying that the aforesaid F.I.R., dated 3rd November, 1980 be quashed, being mala fide and without lawful authority.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The sole ground urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the registration of the case is wholly unwarranted as the allegations contained in the first information report are substantially the same as are the subject-matter of the complaint which is already pending in the Court of learned Senior Special Judge. It is submitted that the same matter being subjudice and having been taken cognizance of by a competent Court, the registration of the case is without lawful authority.
The learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the allegations contained in the complaint and the first information report are not identical and the police was bound to register a case as the allegations disclosed the commission of cognizable offences He further submits that a writ cannot be issued in aid of perpetuation of illegal gains and the investigation is necessary in the interest of justice as the forgery committed in the official record can only be unearthed by the investigating agency.
3. In the parawise comments, respondent No. 3 has stated that the petitioner abused his official position and indulged in large scale of malpractices, nepotism and corruption at the cost of the right-holders. The affected right-holders challenged the consolidation proceedings before the Additional Commissioner who passed strictures against the petitioner and held that the proceedings suffered from irregularities, defects and corruption. The orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer confirming the consolidation scheme was set aside. Anti-Corruption Committee also probed into the matter but the case was deferred as the complaint against the petitioner was pending in the competent Court.
4. After perusing the complaint filed by aforesaid Inayat and the F.I.R. lodged by Muhammad Nawaz, respondent No.4, I find that a number of allegations in both the documents are identical but the F.I.R. contains some additional allegations of a serious nature. In the circum stances, there is no force in the submission that the allegations contained in the first information report are the same on which the petitioner is facing trial in the complaint case. In the circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for interference in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is dismissed.
S.A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer