ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

C. P No.D - 493 of 2019

Priority case

1. For orders on office objection

2. For hearing of CMA No.1848/19

3. For hearing of main case

15.05.2019

Mr. Ubaidullah Kalwar Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Shevak Ram Valecha Advocate for private respondent

Mr. Agha Athar Hussain Pathan AAG

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

The petitioner by way of instant Constitutional Petition has sought for quashment of the FIR Crime No.36/2019 which is lodged with of Police Station Abad, Sukkur mainly for the reason that the same being false has been lodged malafidely.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged without any inquiry only to create harassment for the petitioner and his company as such same is liable to be quashed.

3. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent have sought for dismissal of instant constitutional petition by contending that the interim charge sheet has already been submitted by the police and cognizance whereof has been already been taken by the Court.

4. We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

5. There is no denial to the fact that interim charge sheet of the case has been submitted by the police and cognizance whereof has been taken by the court having jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the FIR which is sought to be quashed by the applicant could not be quashed legally. If the applicant or anyone else is having a feeling that they being innocent have been involved in a false case by the police at the instance of their rivals then they may prove their innocence by joining the trial, if they are advised so.

6. In case of Director General Anti-Corruption Establishment Lahore and others vs. Muhammad Akram Khan & ors (PLD 2013 SC 401), it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that;

“Quashing of F.I.R after Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offence---Legality---When Trial Court had taken cognizance of a case, F.I.R could not be quashed and the fate of the case and of the accused persons challaned therein was to be determined by the Trial Court itself---Accused persons in such circumstances, could avail the remedy under Ss.249-A & 265-K, Cr.P.C, to seek his premature acquittal, if the charge was found to be groundless or there was no possibility of his conviction.”

7. In view of above, the instant Constitutional Petition being misconceived is dismissed accordingly.

Judge

Rafi