IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

Present:

Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

 

CP D 334 of 2024                :           Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical

University Larkana vs.

SHO P.S Civil Line Larkana & Others.

 

For the Petitioner                 :           Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate.

 

Date of hearing                    :           22.05.2024.

 

Date of order                         :           22.05.2024.

 

 

ORDER

 

Agha Faisal, J. The petitioner, being a medical university, has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, seeking to quash
F.I.R No.59 of 2024 recently registered before P.S Civil Line, Larkana, admittedly wherein the petitioner has not been nominated.

 

            The exercise of powers, per Article 199 of the Constitution, was required to be undertaken upon application of an aggrieved person[1]. The counsel has made no submission before us to suggest that the petitioner falls within the definition of an aggrieved person[2]; on the contrary it was admitted that it was not an aggrieved person and merely an employer of persons purportedly aggrieved. Respectfully, the petition does not qualify on the anvil of locus standi.

 

            Furthermore, the learned counsel was confronted with another aspect of maintainability, as to how / why this Court must interfere in a pending criminal investigation. In so far as the objections to the FIR were concerned, counsel was queried as to why the same could not be placed before the investigating officer and / or the concerned court. On the issue of preclusion of arrest, the counsel was queried as to why such relief was directly sought in writ jurisdiction, while eschewing the adequate remedy enshrined in the law. Respectfully, learned counsel remained unable to articulate a cogent response on either count.

 

The Supreme Court had illumined in Ghulam Muhammad[3], back in 1967, that if an offence had been committed justice required that it should be enquired into and tried by the competent forum. In the absence of a finding of guilt the accused had a right to be honorably acquitted by the competent court and vice versa. Abjuring the recourse to regular proceedings by deflection to the High Court was duly deprecated. Ghulam Muhammad was relied upon in Bajwa[4] and Aleem[5]and the Supreme Court considered refusal of the High Court to deflect the normal course of a criminal case, through exercise of writ jurisdiction, as salutary. Muhammad Afzal Zullah CJ., while, approving the authority cited supra, observed in Habib Ahmed[6] that if prima facie an offence had been committed, the ordinary course of trial, before the competent court, was not to be allowed to be deflected through an approach to the High Court. The august Supreme Court, while allowing an appeal against an order of the High Court, held in Sardar Khalid[7] that by allowing recourse to writ the High Court erred in law by short circuiting the normal procedure of law, while exercising equitable jurisdiction which is not in consonance with the law.

 

In view of the preponderance of binding authority, cited supra, it is our considered view that the ordinary course of criminal proceedings could not be allowed to be deflected by resort to writ jurisdiction in the present facts and circumstances. The statutory fora are competent to determine the viability of the relevant criminal proceedings and regulate the custody of the accused. No case has been set forth before us to merit the invocation of the discretionary[8] writ jurisdiction of this Court in such regard; therefore, this petition is hereby dismissed, along with pending applications, in limine.

 

                                                                   Judge

 

Judge

                  



1 Barring certain exceptions, i.e. writ of quo warranto, however, no case was made out to qualify the present petition within an exception recognized by law; 2019 SCMR 1952.

 

[2]Raja Muhammad Nadeem vs. The State reported as PLD 2020 Supreme Court 282; SECP vs. East West Insurance Company reported as 2019 SCMR 532.

[3]Per Hamood ur Rehman J. in Ghulam Muhammad vs. Muzammal Khan & Others reported as PLD 1967 Supreme Court 317.

[4]Per Aslam Riaz Hussain J. in Abdul Rehman Bajwa vs. Sultan & Others reported as PLD 1981 SC 522.

[5]Per Muhammad Afzal Zullah J. in Abdul Aleem vs. Special Judge (Customs) Lahore & Others & Others reported as 1982 SCMR 522.

[6]A Habib Ahmed vs. MKG Scott Christian & Others reported as PLD 1992 Supreme Court 353.

[7]Per Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmed J. in Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem vs. Muhammad Ashraf & Others reported as 2006 SCMR 1192.

[8]Per Ijaz Ul Ahsan J. in Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs. PBC & Others reported as 2021 SCMR 425; Muhammad Fiaz Khan vs. Ajmer Khan & Another reported as 2010 SCMR 105.