P L D 2013 Supreme Court 401
Present: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, JJ
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, LAHORE and
others---Appellants
Versus
MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN and others---Respondents
Civil Appeal No.127-L of 2013, decided on 27th February, 2013.
(Against the order dated 30-9-2011 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition
No.16970 of 2011).
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 154 & 173--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409 & 109--- Prevention of Corruption Act
(II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, abetment, criminal
misconduct---Partial quashing of F.I.R.---Scope---High Court partially quashing F.I.R. to the
extent of one of the accused after Trial Court had taken cognizance of the case and challan had
been submitted---Legality---Partial quashing of an F.I.R. to the extent of some of the accused
persons was a legal impossibility---High Court quashed F.I.R. to the extent of accused at a time
when challan had already been submitted before the Trial Court and the court had already taken
cognizance of the case---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---Appeal was allowed and order passed by High Court was
set aside by Supreme Court.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 154, 173, 249-A & 265-K--- 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 person 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.
Muhammad Azeem Malik, Addl. A.-G. Punjab for Appellants.
Imtiaz A. Shaukat, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 to 12.
Date of hearing: 27th February, 2013.
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the
order dated 30-9-2011 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore
in Writ Petition No.16970 of 2011 whereby F.I.R. No.8 registered at Police Station Anti-
Corruption Establishment, Multan on 27-2-2011 in respect of offences under section 409, P.P.C.
read with section 109, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was
partially quashed to the extent of respondent No.1.
2. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab appearing for the appellants
and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and having gone through the record of the case with
their assistance we have found that through the impugned order the learned Judge-in-Chamber of
the Lahore High Court, Lahore had partially quashed the relevant F.I.R. to the extent of
respondent No.1 whereas partial quashing of an F.I.R. to the extent of some of the accused
persons mentioned therein is a legal impossibility. Apart from that the impugned order had been
passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore at a time when a
Challan in the relevant criminal case had already been submitted before the learned trial court and
the learned Trial court had already taken cognizance of the case. The law is quite settled by now
that after taking of cognizance of a case by a trial court the F.I.R. registered in that case cannot be
quashed and the fate of the case and of the accused persons challaned therein is to be determined
by the trial court itself. It goes without saying that if after taking of cognizance of a case by the
trial court an accused person deems himself to be innocent and falsely implicated and he wishes to
avoid the rigours of a trial then the law has provided him a remedy under sections 249-A/265-K,
Cr.P.C. to seek his premature acquittal if the charge against him is groundless or there is no
probability of his conviction.
3. For what has been discussed above this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the
learned Judge--in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 30-9-2011 in Writ Petition
No.16970 of 2010 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
MWA/D-3/S Appeal allowed.
