Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1836 of 1979, decided on 4th April, 1979.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Examination of evidence or carrying out investigation into fact, held, cannot be done in constitu tional jurisdiction.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.154 & 561‑A‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Quashing of four first information reports lodged against accused allegedly as a result of mala fides of complainant‑‑No evidence available to connect complainant in first information reports with person described by accused to be his enemy at whose instance complainant allegedly instituted mala fide proceedings‑‑Held, accused could approach appropriate criminal Court, for quashing of each first information report as each constituted a distinct offence and a different case, and establish facts by leading evidence before a competent Court.

‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Right of enjoyment of protection of law available to accused‑‑No official functionary entitled to act against him without authority of law‑‑This right granted by Constitution‑‑‑ No declaration by High Court, held, would be necessary to establish this right.

Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Petitioner.

Muhammad Jaffar son of Amir, caste Janjua Rajput resident of Chak No. 52/5‑L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal has approached this Court by a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution requesting for quashment of four F.I.Rs. lodged by Islam‑ud‑Din son of Nazir Ahmad, Haji Fazal‑ul‑Haq son of Mian Khair Din of Okara, Muhammad Ramzan son of Lal Din and Allah Ditta son of Sohna of Pattoki, District Kasur.

2. The facts alleged in the petition are that a large number of cases have been instituted by different persons against the petitioner. It is contended that one Muhammad Shafi son of Sher Muhammad was responsible for the institution of most of these cases against the present petitioner. Nothing has been alleged to connect the complainants in the four F.I.Rs. with the said Muhammad Shafi to support the assertions that the impugned F.I.Rs. have been lodged at his instance. In any case the allegation will have to be substantiated by evidence. Nothing is available on record to justify an inference that these proceedings have been initiated by Muhammad Shafi or that the complainant in the various cases acted at the behest of the said Muhammad Shafi. In fact Muhammad Shafi is not a party in the writ petition nor the complainants in the F.I.Rs. sought to be quashed have been named as respondents. The only other relief prayed for is that the respondents (Police Officers) be "directed not to arrest the petitioner in any bogus, false cases except in accordance with law".

3. Having carefully considered the arguments on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the view that in the writ jurisdiction it is not possible for me to examine evidence or to carry out investigation into facts. As explained earlier there is no evidence to connect the complainants in the four F.I.Rs. with Muhammad Shaft who is described as a sworn enemy of the petitioner so as to constitute all these F.I.Rs. male fide proceedings instituted on behalf of the same person namely, Muhammad Shafi. It would be for the petitioner to approach the appropriate criminal Courts for quashment of each F.I.R. separately as each constitutes a distinct offence and a different case and to establish facts by leading evidence before a competent Court.

4. The second relief claimed by the petitioner is equally misconceived. The petitioner is entitled to enjoy the protection of law and no official functionary is entitled to act against him without the authority of law. This right is guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution and a declaration of this Court in this behalf is hardly required to establish this right.

5. With these observations the writ petition' is disposed of.

M.Y.H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.