Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) – Article 199: ---Quashing of FIR---Scope of constitutional jurisdiction---Petitioners sought quashment of FIR No. 174, registered under Ss. 419, 420, 406, 471, 468, and 34, P.P.C., on the ground that the dispute was of a civil nature and the FIR was mala fide---Held, Article 199 of the Constitution confers extraordinary jurisdiction, which is not meant to serve as an alternative remedy available under ordinary law---The primary question in such cases is whether the petitioner has other adequate remedies available under the law, which must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Ss. 154, 169, 190, 551: ---Remedies available to an accused during criminal investigation---Petitioners had multiple remedies at different stages of investigation and trial, including: (i) S.154, Cr.P.C. – Investigating Officer (I.O.) must collect evidence to determine if the information in the FIR is correct. (ii) S.169, Cr.P.C. – I.O. has the power to release an accused if no sufficient evidence is found. (iii) S.551, Cr.P.C. – Accused can approach a senior police officer for redressal against an unfair investigation. (iv) S.63, Cr.P.C. – Accused can seek discharge from a competent Magistrate if allegations are unfounded. (v) S.190, Cr.P.C. – Accused can demonstrate before a Magistrate that FIR allegations are false or baseless. Held, since these remedies were available, constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked to preempt the normal course of criminal proceedings. (c) FIR Quashment – Cognizable Offense & Investigation: ---Interference with criminal proceedings---Courts do not ordinarily quash an FIR where it prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offense---Held, the allegations in the FIR required investigation to determine their veracity, and criminal proceedings could not be stifled merely on the plea that a civil dispute existed between the parties---The existence of a parallel civil suit did not preclude criminal liability, particularly when criminal intent could be inferred from multiple transactions involving misrepresentation. (d) Abuse of Constitutional Jurisdiction: ---When Article 199 relief is not warranted---Held, High Court does not determine intricate or contested facts in writ jurisdiction, as doing so would encroach upon the authority of the trial court and investigating agencies---Since the FIR disclosed cognizable offenses, the petitioners’ claim of innocence and civil liability could only be determined after proper investigation and trial. -----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; FIR not quashed.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) ----S. 497---Bail in murder cases---Scope of further inquiry---Blind murder---Absence of direct evidence---Non-recovery of incriminating material---Principles for grant of bail--- The respondents were granted bail by the Chief Court in a case registered under Sections 302, 364-A, 365, and 34 PPC. The FIR initially did not nominate any accused, and the case was a blind murder. During the investigation, suspects were arrested and later released under Section 169 Cr.PC due to insufficient evidence. Subsequent investigation revealed the involvement of the respondents based on the disclosure of a co-accused (Nabi Shah). However, no direct evidence or recovery was attributed to the respondents. The Supreme Appellate Court observed that bail cannot be withheld merely on the nature of the offence if no sufficient material directly connects the accused to the crime. The Court held that the learned Chief Court had rightly granted bail, as the case against the respondents fell under the scope of "further inquiry" under Section 497 Cr.PC. ----Disposition: Appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Chief Court granting bail was maintained.