2025 M L D 1720
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, ACJ and Shoukat Ali Rakhshani, J
SANAULLAH ---Petitioner
Versus
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA and 7 others ---
Respondents
Constitution Petition No. 367 of 2024, decided on 22nd April, 2024.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 561- A & 154--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.
489- F---Quashing of FIRs ---Scope ---Powers of High Court ---Scope ---Multiple FIRs of
same incident ---Legality ---With regard to an incident of a particular offence or a criminal
indictment two or more FIRs cannot be registered, even if the adversial party has a different
version to offer---Complainant lodged FIR, averring therein that on 31.10.2018 he entered into an agreement with petitioner and others regarding sale of tyres of truck amounting to Rs.32,300,000/ -(Thirty Two Million Three Hundred Thousand), which had to be paid up till
01.09.2018, but on failure it was agreed that from 01.12.2018 onwards he would pay
2,000,000/ - (Twenty lacks) per month, commencing from 01.12.2018, thus on 31.10.2018
sixteen (16) postdated cheques were issued, which were incorporated in the purported agreement dated 31.10.2018 and that when the cheques were presented in the bank for encashment, the same were dishonored ---Admittedly, the allegations contained in the FIRs
in question revolved around similar set of allegations, transactions and dishonor of the cheques, thus the said FIRs merited to be quashed as the same could not be allowed to hold field for being impermissible under the law, whereof it could be gathered with no other view that the FIRs in question were based on malice and nothing else, making the petitioner incapacitated to get bail and furnished huge sureties time and again ---Undeniably, a person
cannot be vexed twice for the same offence as it offends Art.13 of the Constitution on the principle of double jeopardy---Legal heirs of the complainant had also resorted to the remedy by filling a summary suit as contemplated under O.XXXVII of C.P.C., which was subjudice before the Civil Court ---Thus, two FIRs registered at different police stations were nullity in
the eyes of law, amounting to abuse of process of law, which would cause gross miscarriage of justice ---Said FIRs were quashed, in circumstances ---Petition was partly allowed.
Sughran Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595; Indepndent Media Corporation (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. Prosecutor General, Quetta PLD 2015 Bal. 54 and Muhammad Azam Khan Swati v. Inspector General of Police, Balochistan PLD 2023 Bal. 85 rel.
Saifullah Kakar for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ayub Tareen for the Complainant.
Asif Reki Advocate General along with Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Additional Advocate
General, Habibullah Gul, Additional Prosecutor General along with Atiq -ur-Rehman SHO,
Satellite Town, Sadeeq Ullah SI/Investigation P.S Satellite Town, Saoud- ur-Rehman, SIO
Shalkot Quetta and Khair Muhammad, SI/SHO Shalkot Quetta for Official Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th April, 2024.
JUDGMENT
SHOUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .---The instant constitutional petition filed under
Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), carries the following prayer clause;
"A) To quash the FIRS i.e. (1) FIR No.05/2020 of P.S City Chaman (2) FIR No.
40/2020 of P.S Satellite Town Quetta and (3) FIR No.27/2020 of P.S Shalkot, Quetta lodged by Khair Muhammad (late) lodged against the petitioner and his family and custody of petitioner may not be handed over to Karachi Police in FIR No.294/2020 under section 489- F, P.P.C. lodged by Khair Muhammad (late).
B) Respondents be directed to not initiate any proceedings on the basis of FIRs i.e. (1) FIR No.05/2020 of P.S City Chaman (2) FIR No.40/2020 of P.S Satellite Town Quetta and (3) FIR No.27/2020 of P.S Shalkot, Quetta.
C) The petitioner be set at liberty and release the petitioner by quashing the above mentioned FIRs, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay."
2. Complainant Khair Muhammad (late) lodged FIR No.05/2020 registered with Police
Station ("PS") City, Chaman District Killa Abdullah, averring therein that on 31.10.2018 he entered into an agreement at Karachi with petitioner Sanaullah, Manzoor Ahmed, Gohar Khan and Assadullah regarding sale of tyres of truck amounting to Rs.32,300,000/ -(Thirty
Two Million Three Hundred Thousand), which had to be paid up till 01.09.2018, but on failure it was agreed that from 01.12.2018 onwards he would pay 2,000,000/ - (Twenty lacks)
per month, commencing from 01.12.2018, thus on 31.10.2018 sixteen (16) postdated cheques
were issued, which were incorporated in the purported agreement dated 31.10.2018 and that
when the cheques were presented in the bank for encashment, the same were dishonored.
3. The petitioner claims that he has nothing to do with the sale agreement or any
liability incorporated in the purported agreement dated 31.10.2018, as neither he is signatory of the cheques nor has he issued the cheques in question, but he has maliciously been involved by complainant Khair Muhammad (late) in a case bearing FIR No.05/2020
and was arrested in the said case. According to the petitioner, he applied for bail in the FIR ibid, thus he was granted bail, but despite submission of surety bonds, he was not released and on query he was let to know that he has been shown arrested in another FIR bearing No.40 of 2020 registered with PS Satelite Town Quetta, whereafter he was also let to know that he was indicted in FIRs bearing No.27 of 2020 of PS Shalkot, Quetta and FIR No.294/220 of PS Kalary, Karachi as well regarding the same sixteen (16) cheques, hence this petition for quashment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that neither the petitioner is
signatory of the cheques in question nor he has issued the same pursuant to the obligation incorporated in the purported agreement dated 31.10.2018, thus the petitioner is not liable to be indicted for the crime alleged in the FIRs. He maintained that the FIRs in question are classic example of false implication of an innocent person, amounting to sheer abuse of process of law to pressurize an innocent person by roping him in various criminal cases, which otherwise is impermissible under the law. He added that complainant Khair Muhammad (late) had also filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Killa Abdullah at Chaman ("trial Court"), but during pendency of the lis he died and subsequently his legal heirs were impleaded as party, which is pending adjudication before the trial Court, thus registration of the FIRs is nothing, but an attempt to pressurize the petitioner to bow down before the son of complainant in order to accept his undue demands.
Learned counsel for the complainant refuted the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner and stated that, when the cheques in questions were presented in the bank for encashment on different dates, same were dishonored, therefore, registration of subsequent FIRs are not legally barred, henceforth, cannot be quashed.
Learned AG, AAG and APG maintained that the first FIR bearing No.05 of 2020
registered PS City, Chaman and the FIR bearing No.294 of 2020 registered with PS Kalary, Karachi cannot be quashed, however, registration of remaining FIRs with various police stations in Balochistan are legally impermissible and, as such, cannot be allowed to remain in field.
5. Heard. Record gone through with the able assistance of learned counsel for the
adversial parties. While arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded and stated that he would not press the quashment of the FIR bearing No.05 of 2020
registered PS City, Chaman and would resort to the remedy as contemplated under section
265- K of Cr.P.C. in the first instance, as challan of the instant case has been submitted in the
trial Court. He also stated not to press the quashment of the FIR bearing No.294 of 2020 registered with PS Kalary, Karachi as he intends to seek remedy before the Court having territorial jurisdiction
6. There is no other view that with regard to an incident of a particular offence or a
criminal indictment two or more FIRs cannot be registered thereof, even if the adversial party has a different version to offer. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of "Sughran Bibi v. The State" (PLD 2018 SC 595). As far as FIR bearing Nos.40 of 2020 registered with PS Satelite Town, Quetta and 27 of 2020 of PS Shalkot, Quetta are concerned, we are of the considered view that the subsequent FIRs, the quashment whereof have been sought are nothing, but an abuse of process of law with the purpose to rote the petitioner in captivity till he surrenders to the whims and wishes of the complainant party.
7. Admittedly, the allegations contained in the FIRs in questions revolves around similar
set of allegations, transactions and dishonor of the cheques, thus the said FIRs merits to be quashed as the same cannot be allowed to hold field for being impermissible under the law, whereof it can be gathered with no other view that the FIRs in question are based on malice and nothing else, making the petitioner incapacitated to get bail and furnish huge sureties time and again. In this regard, we would like to place reliance upon the cases reported as "Independent Media Corporation (PVT) LTD v. Prosecutor General, Quetta" (PLD 2015 Balochistan 54) and "Muhammad Azam Khan Swati v. Inspector General of Police, Balochistan" (PLD 2023 Balochistan 85). For ease of reference, the relevant Para Nos.6 and 7 of Muhammad Azam Khan Swati's case supra are reproduced herein below;
"6. At the very outset and without burdening the judgment in hand with scholarly discussion, I have observed that multiple FIRs across the country have been registered against the petitioner. The moot question for consideration arises as to whether investigation and further proceedings on the basis of all the FIRs are permissible? Though a strait Jacket formula cannot be laid down, yet the only test whether multiple FIRs can be permitted to exist. In such case, the Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to all the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether all the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents, which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in affirmative, the second or the remaining FIRs are liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible.
7. Considering the instant case on the touchstone of aforesaid settled legal proposition, I am of the view that it is neither possible nor convenient for the petitioner to obtain bail from various Courts in various cities joining various investigations and finally defending himself before various Courts, that too, for one and the same offence. Admittedly, all the aforementioned FIRs have been registered for the same incident under the same provisions of law against the same accused and in such state of affairs, taking cognizance by multiple Courts, having different territorial jurisdiction simultaneously, seems to be in violation of Articles 4 and 13 of the Constitution, section 403 of the Cr.P.C and section 26 of the General Clauses Act 1897. Similarly, Part V1 -chapter XV sections 177,179 180, 181 and section 235 of the
Cr.P.C also envisage a single trial."
8. Undeniably, a person cannot be vexed twice for the same offence as it offends Article
13 of the Constitution on the principle of double jeopardy. Needless to add here that the legal heirs of the complainant have also resorted to the remedy by filling a summary suit as contemplated under Order XXXVII of C.P.C., which is subjudice before the trial Court.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the FIR bearing No.40
of 2020 registered with PS Satelite Town, Quetta and FIR bearing No.27 of 2020 registered with PS Shalkot, Quetta are nullity in the eyes of law, amounting to abuse of process of law, which shall cause gross miscarriage of justice.
10. In light of the above, the instant petition is partly allowed and the FIR bearing No.40
of 2020 registered with PS Satelite Town, Quetta and FIR bearing No. 27 of 2020 registered
with PS Shalkot,Quetta are hereby quashed.
JK/5/Bal. Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.