Quashment of FIR

—Writ—sections 10,11 & 16, 19 ZHA—quashment of FIR—principle—respondent being major contracted Nikah with her free will and consent—there was no other one claiming as her husband—Held: Generally, Courts do not interfere into investigation if proper case is made out—However, FIR is quashed where the registration of the case is found mala fide or the police is found to have transgressed its statutory limits. High Court has rightly quashed the F.I.R. Muhammad Farooq v. Arooj Fatima & 2 others 2020 SCR 755 (A)
—writ jurisdiction—general principle and exception to it–administration of justice—doctrine of stare decisis–Held: the Court has no quarrel with the arguments that F.I.R. disclosing the cognizable offences cannot be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction—However, each and every case is to be judged in the light of its peculiar facts and circumstances—No one else is claiming the hand of appellant rather her father has also admitted her Nikah with appellant No.1 that is why he has attempted to file a suit for dissolution of marriage in Gojra, Pakistan. Ayaz Hussain & another V. State & 10 others 2020 SCR 775 (B)
—writ jurisdiction—non-interference by Courts in police investigation—general principle—exception to the principle–Held: the Courts do not intervene in the police investigation but where an FIR has been registered against the spouses without due inquiry and taking notice of the facts, the Courts cannot shut its eyes and a grave misuse of authority by police can be checked and corrected in exercise of writ jurisdiction—It is not an absolute rule that the High Court cannot interfere in the investigation even though if it is proved that the case has been registered without lawful authority by police by misusing its authority. Ayaz Hussain & another V. State & 10 others 2020 SCR 775 (D)
—Principle—exception to rule—Held: it is true that the Courts do not interfere in the matter of investigation but this is not a hard and fast rule. By known law is well settled that where the police transgress its authority while registering the case or the offences on the face of it could not be constituted on investigation is mala fide then the High Court can come to the rescue an innocent citizen from unlawful harassment and can quash the investigation to his extent but the Courts have always left the matter at the disposal of investigating authority. Muhammad Fareed v. State through AdvocateGeneral & 3 others 2020 SCR 823 (A)
—Writ—the High 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 has committed an offence or not—High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into merits and demerits of the allegation and quash proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete it task at first. Mumtaz Hussain Versus State & 2 others 2021 SCR 605 (A)
—High Court powers and scope of—Police have statutory right to investigate into an offence—the function of the Court begins when report u/s 173, Cr.P.C. and charge is preferred before it–except in exceptional cases, either to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice, though, no hard and fast rule may be determined by stretch of mere imagination. Sharoom Khan&another v. Justice of Peace & others 2022 SCR 267 (C)
—section 406 & 420, APC—allegation of fraud—allegations against the respondents are matter of fact, which can only be determined through evidence. The matter was being probed and investigated by the investigating agency and it was yet to be decided whether allegations levelled against the accused- respondent are correct or not. Appeal accepted and judgment of High Court set aside. Syed Farhan Haider v. Syed Kashif Gilani & 4 others 2022 SCR 1096 (A) 2022 SCR 267 rel.