Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 319, 322 & 34 Criminal Negligence—Medical Malpractice—Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts—Expert Opinion—Role of Regulatory Authorities (IHRA & PM&DC) The prosecution of medical negligence cases under Sections 319 (Qatl-i-Khata) and 322 (Qatl-bis-Sabab) of the Pakistan Penal Code cannot proceed without an expert medical opinion from relevant regulatory bodies such as the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA) and the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC). The determination of medical negligence requires technical analysis by professional experts and cannot be conclusively determined through police investigation or judicial assessment alone. IHRA is the designated authority under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, to assess complaints of malpractice, maladministration, and failure in healthcare services. Similarly, PM&DC holds statutory jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022, to evaluate allegations of professional misconduct and negligence. In cases of alleged medical negligence, police must first seek expert opinion from IHRA or PM&DC before registering an FIR or initiating criminal proceedings. The absence of such expert opinion renders the prosecution untenable. ----Cited Cases: Shifa International Hospitals Ltd. v. Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, 2011 CLC 463 Riaz Ahmed v. ADJ/EX-officio Justice of Peace Rojhan District Rajanpur, 2022 PCr.LJ 1067 Muhammad Saleem v. The State, 2002 PCr.LJ 216 Syed Mushahid Shah v. Federal Investment Agency, 2017 CLD 1198 Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan v. Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, PLD 2019 Lahore 429 Dr. Sheraz-ur-Rehman v. Province of Sindh, 2020 CLC 2037 Dr. Khair Muhammad Sahowal v. Province of Sindh, 2022 YLR 63 ----Disposition: The FIR No.823/23, dated 16.09.2023, registered under Sections 322/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad, was quashed. The pending private complaint under Section 319, P.P.C. was stayed until the receipt of a conclusive expert report from IHRA or PM&DC. (b) Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 (IHRA) ----Ss. 33 & 34 Medical Negligence—Jurisdiction of IHRA—Complaint Mechanism—Mandatory Expert Opinion Under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, allegations of medical negligence must first be assessed by the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA). The law mandates that complaints concerning medical negligence, malpractice, and maladministration be lodged directly with IHRA, which then conducts an inquiry and issues an expert opinion. The findings of IHRA carry authoritative weight in determining whether criminal negligence occurred. Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or sustained without the support of an expert opinion from IHRA. ----Disposition: Police authorities must seek an expert report from IHRA before registering an FIR or proceeding with criminal prosecution in cases involving allegations of medical negligence. (c) Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 (PM&DC): ----S. 44 Disciplinary Jurisdiction—Professional Negligence—Licensing Authority—Expert Assessment The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) is the statutory authority responsible for investigating and deciding cases of professional negligence involving healthcare professionals. Under Section 44, PM&DC has the power to remove or suspend the license of a healthcare professional found guilty of professional negligence or misconduct. No criminal proceedings can proceed without an expert report from PM&DC, confirming negligence or professional misconduct on the part of the accused healthcare professional. ----Disposition: The police must seek expert opinion from PM&DC in cases involving professional negligence before initiating any criminal action. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 561-A Inherent Powers of the Court—Quashing of FIR—Absence of Expert Opinion The court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., quashed the FIR due to the absence of a conclusive expert opinion from IHRA or PM&DC. It was held that police investigation and judicial proceedings in cases of medical negligence must be backed by technical expert analysis. ----Cited Cases: Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq, 2006 SCMR 276 Rana Shahid Ahmad Khan v. Tanveer Ahmed, 2011 SCMR 1937 Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed, 2000 SCMR 122 Director General FIA v. Kamran Iqbal, 2016 SCMR 447 Pervez Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan, 1995 MLD 615 Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan, 1995 PCr.LJ 1224 Muhammad Aslam v. DPO, Rawalpindi, 2009 SCMR 141 Zulfiqar Ali v. SHO PS Model Town Gujranwala, 2014 PCr.LJ 487 Muhammad Nawaz v. SHO PS Sabzi Mandi Islamabad, 2017 PCr.LJ 133 ---Disposition: The FIR was quashed, and criminal proceedings were halted pending expert opinions from IHRA and PM&DC. The private complaint under Section 319, P.P.C. was stayed until expert reports were furnished.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (S.561-A) – Quashing of FIR – Medical Negligence – Applicability of Special Laws: ----Jurisdiction of Police and Courts in Cases of Alleged Medical Negligence – Role of IHRA and PM&DC. In cases involving allegations of medical negligence, the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA) under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, and the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) under the PMDC Act, 2022, are the competent forums to investigate and determine negligence by healthcare professionals. FIRs related to medical negligence cannot be directly registered without an expert opinion or report from IHRA or PMDC. Criminal proceedings cannot proceed without an authoritative determination of professional negligence by the relevant regulatory authorities. Held: Police must first seek an expert report from IHRA or PMDC before proceeding under criminal law. FIRs registered without expert input are liable to be quashed. ----Cited Cases: Shifa International Hospitals Ltd. v. PMDC (2011 CLC 463) Riaz Ahmed v. ADJ Rajanpur (2022 PCr.LJ 1067) (b) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (S.322, 319) – Qatl-bis-Sabab vs. Qatl-i-Khata – Distinction and Applicability: ----Medical Negligence – Interpretation of Sections 322 and 319 PPC. Under Section 322 PPC (Qatl-bis-Sabab) and Section 319 PPC (Qatl-i-Khata), intent plays a crucial role in differentiating the offences. Qatl-bis-Sabab involves an unlawful act without intent, while Qatl-i-Khata arises from mistake of act or fact without intent to harm or kill. In allegations of medical negligence, expert reports from IHRA or PMDC are mandatory to determine whether the act constitutes negligence or falls within the scope of Sections 322 or 319 PPC. Held: Without a clear determination by medical regulatory authorities, courts cannot conclusively determine whether the alleged act constitutes Qatl-bis-Sabab or Qatl-i-Khata. ----Cited Cases: Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan v. Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court (PLD 2019 Lahore 429) Dr. Sheraz-ur-Rehman v. Province of Sindh (2020 CLC 2037) (c) Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 (S.33, S.34) – Investigation of Medical Negligence: ----Role of IHRA in Determining Medical Negligence – Procedural Requirements. Under Section 33 of the IHRA Act, 2018, allegations of medical negligence must first be investigated by IHRA. Only after IHRA concludes its inquiry and determines negligence can the matter proceed under criminal law. Police and courts lack the technical expertise to determine medical negligence independently. Held: IHRA is the primary authority to investigate medical negligence claims in Islamabad. Police must refer such matters to IHRA before registering FIRs under PPC. ----Cited Cases: Riaz Ahmed v. ADJ Rajanpur (2022 PCr.LJ 1067) Muhammad Saleem v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 216) (d) Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 (S.44) – Disciplinary Committee – Removal of Medical Practitioners: ----Professional Negligence – Jurisdiction of PMDC in Disciplinary Actions. Under Section 44 of the PMDC Act, 2022, the Disciplinary Committee of PMDC is authorized to hear complaints of professional negligence against medical practitioners and take disciplinary action, including cancellation of licenses. Criminal prosecution should not commence unless PMDC has concluded that professional negligence occurred. Held: PMDC is the primary regulatory authority for professional negligence allegations against doctors. Criminal prosecution should only follow after disciplinary proceedings conclude. ----Cited Cases: Director General FIA v. Kamran Iqbal (2016 SCMR 447) Muhammad Saleem v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 216) (e) Special Law vs. General Law – Prevalence of IHRA Act, 2018 over PPC: ----Conflict Between Special and General Laws – Applicability of IHRA Act. In cases where special law (IHRA Act, 2018) and general law (PPC) conflict, the special law prevails over general law. IHRA is specifically enacted to address medical negligence, while PPC generally deals with bodily harm and criminal liability. Held: IHRA Act, 2018 prevails over PPC in matters of medical negligence. Police cannot bypass IHRA procedures by directly registering FIRs without obtaining expert reports. ----Cited Cases: Syed Mushahid Shah v. Federal Investment Agency (2017 CLD 1198) Muhammad Saleem v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 216) (f) Inherent Jurisdiction (S.561-A Cr.P.C) – Quashing of FIR in Medical Negligence Cases ----Powers of High Court to Quash FIR in Exceptional Circumstances. The High Court has inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs in extraordinary circumstances, particularly where proceedings are initiated without following the due process outlined in special statutes like IHRA Act or PMDC Act. In the present case, FIR No.823/23 was quashed as it lacked the prerequisite expert opinion from IHRA or PMDC. Held: FIRs alleging medical negligence cannot proceed without expert verification. High Courts can quash FIRs in such cases under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. ----Cited Cases: Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq (2006 SCMR 276) Rana Shahid Ahmad Khan v. Tanveer Ahmed (2011 SCMR 1937) (g) Stay of Proceedings in Private Complaint Pending Expert Report: ----Role of Private Complaints in Medical Negligence Cases. In cases where a private complaint alleging medical negligence has been filed, proceedings must remain stayed until expert reports from IHRA or PMDC are obtained. Without technical validation of negligence, courts cannot proceed with private complaints under criminal statutes. Held: Proceedings on private complaints alleging medical negligence must await expert determination by IHRA or PMDC. ----Cited Cases: Dr. Khair Muhammad Sahowal v. Province of Sindh (2022 YLR 63) Dr. Sheraz-ur-Rehman v. Province of Sindh (2020 CLC 2037) -----Disposition: The FIR No.823/23 registered under Sections 322/34 PPC was quashed. The private complaint under Section 319 PPC remains stayed until an expert report from IHRA or PMDC is submitted. The police and complainant must approach IHRA and PMDC for expert determination. No order as to costs.

Summary: Proven Medical Negligence of a Surgeon Doctor --- Sub Section 7 to Section 4 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 --- Besides the proceedings under Healthcare Commission Act, the aggrieved patient can sue against a doctor for recovery of damages and Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit and award compatible damages keeping in view reasonableness of the compensation, loss of amenities, actual expenses, Medical expenses, loss of earning, pecuniary loss, pain and suffering or hiring service of others etc. Appeal partially allowed---- Amount of compensation enhanced. ---- Facts:Mariam Sajjad, a BSc student, experienced arm pain and was diagnosed with "Cervical Rib" by Prof. Dr. Rasool Ahmed Chaudhary, an Orthopedic Surgeon at Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. Immediate surgery was advised and performed on 17.12.2012. Post-surgery, Mariam experienced paralysis in her lower body and loss of control over urination and bowels. A medical board determined that the surgery damaged her spinal cord due to the surgeon's negligence. The Punjab Healthcare Commission, upon investigation, recommended stern actions against Dr. Rasool Ahmed Chaudhary for medical negligence.Procedural History:Mariam filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 750 Million as damages, which was partially decreed by the Civil Judge, Faisalabad, awarding Rs. 50,00,000/-. Both parties appealed against the decision.Issues:Whether Mariam Sajjad is entitled to recover Rs. 750 Million from Dr. Rasool Ahmed Chaudhary for damages due to medical negligence resulting in her disability and career impact.Holdings:The Lahore High Court allowed Mariam Sajjad's appeal, enhancing the damages to Rs. 100,00,000/-, and dismissed Dr. Rasool Ahmed Chaudhary's appeal.Legal Reasoning:The court relied on the definition of "medical negligence" under Section 19(1) of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, and principles from tort law regarding the duty of care and damages. The court found Dr. Chaudhary negligent for not performing the surgery correctly, leading to Mariam's paralysis. The court also considered principles for assessing compensatory damages in medical negligence cases, emphasizing fair compensation for injury, pain, suffering, loss of amenity, medical expenses, and loss of earnings.Significant Citations:Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs. Zahida Afzal & Others (2006 SCMR 207)Dr. Atta Muhammad Khanzada vs. Muhammad Sherin (1996 CLC 1440) [D.B]Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole & Another (1969 AIR (SC) 128)State of Haryana vs. Smt. Santra (2000 AIR (SC) 1888)Darnley vs. Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (2019 SCMR 143)Montgomery vs. Lanarkshire Health Board (2015 SCMR 663)Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Railways & Others vs. Abdul Wahid & Others (2011 SCMR 1836)

Summary: Bail granted ---- Issues:1) Whether the petitioner's pre-arrest bail should be confirmed considering the alleged inconsistencies between the FIR and medical reports.--- 2) Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.----- Judgment:The Supreme Court confirmed the petitioner's ad-interim pre-arrest bail, noting significant inconsistencies between the FIR and medical evidence, and the statement from the Investigation Officer suggesting the petitioner's non-involvement. The Court highlighted the need for further inquiry into the case, emphasizing the principle that bail decisions should not prejudge the trial's outcome.Reasoning:The Court observed the discrepancies between the FIR's account of a firearm injury and the medical reports suggesting a sharp-edged weapon injury, which was later deemed fabricated by a Special Medical Board. The Investigation Officer's report under Section 168 Cr.P.C., which was disregarded by the SHO, further questioned the petitioner's culpability. The Court underscored the importance of a tentative assessment of the evidence at the bail stage, the role of mala fide in granting pre-arrest bail, and the necessity for the trial court to make a definitive judgment on guilt.Order:The Supreme Court confirmed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail granted on 17th July 2023, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing it. The observations made were declared tentative, not to affect the trial proceedings. The Court also provided for the possibility of bail cancellation upon misuse.Key Principles:Pre-arrest bail may be granted in cases of apparent mala fide implication.Discrepancies in FIR and medical evidence require further judicial inquiry.Tentative assessments at the bail stage should not prejudice the trial's outcome.

Summary: Mr. Osama Amin Qazi, the learned counsel for the Appellant, argued that the impugned order violated the law, particularly Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as it failed to provide the Appellant with a proper opportunity to defend. Additionally, Mr. Qazi contended that the order contravened Section 19(1) of the Press, Newspaper, News Agencies, and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, and was based on arbitrary, hasty, and conjectural grounds. Conversely, Mr. Mirza Asif Abbas, the learned Assistant Advocate General representing the Respondents, vehemently opposed the appeal, citing the Appellant's violation of Paragraph No. 3 of the Ethical Code of Practice contained in the Schedule of the Press Council of Pakistan Ordinance, 2002. After hearing arguments and examining the record, the court noted that a Show Cause Notice No. 4393 GC was issued on 26.08.2019, alleging a violation of the Ordinance and the Ethical Code of Practice regarding the publication of a news article attributing the death of Muhammad Jawad Bhatti to the negligence of doctors and medical staff at the District Headquarter Hospital, Chakwal. However, the court highlighted that the District Co-ordination Officer/Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority to act without a complaint from the Press Registrar. Citing relevant legal precedents, including the case of MUHAMMAD IDREES AASI vs. DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, FAISALABAD (2009 C L C 1163 LAHORE), the court emphasized that the District Co-ordination Officer/Deputy Commissioner cannot take action unless the case is referred by the Press Registrar. The court also invoked Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, emphasizing citizens' rights to lawful professions or occupations. Consequently, the court concluded that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority and allowed the appeal, setting aside the said order and restoring the declaration of the Appellant with respect to the weekly newspaper "Chakwalian."

Summary: The case involved a petitioner who raised concerns about mental health issues and alleged mistreatment while in custody. The court detailed the sequence of events, including the petitioner's complaints of torture, referrals to medical boards, and subsequent findings of mental disorder. The court noted discrepancies in following proper legal procedures regarding the petitioner's mental health status during trial proceedings. Insanity Defense and Mental Health Laws: The court referenced Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Chapter XXXIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provide protection for accused individuals suffering from mental disorders during trial proceedings. Case Law Interpretation: The court cited various legal cases, such as Safia Bano v. Home Department, to clarify the procedural aspects of determining an accused person's mental capacity to stand trial. The court emphasized the importance of forming a prima facie opinion regarding the accused's mental capacity and conducting inquiries accordingly. Release Pending Trial: The court referred to Section 466 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which outlines procedures for releasing accused persons found to be of unsound mind pending investigation or trial. It stressed the need for proper application of the law and reasoned decision-making in such cases. International Human Rights Standards: The court highlighted international human rights standards, including declarations and conventions related to the rights of persons with disabilities, emphasizing the need for compliance with these standards in domestic law and legal proceedings. In conclusion, the court remanded the case to the lower court with specific directions to adhere to proper legal procedures, reevaluate the petitioner's mental health status, and ensure compliance with international human rights standards.

Summary: The regulatory authority, Punjab Healthcare Commission, imposed a fine on the healthcare facility and referred one of the doctors to the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council for further action. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the Commission had exclusive jurisdiction under the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act and that legal proceedings, including filing an FIR, are barred under section 29 of the Act. The petitioner's counsel contended that the allegations are false, malicious, and lack evidence. They also argue that the Justice of Peace's order to register an FIR is unlawful and should not proceed until an appeal against the Commission's decision is resolved. The legal discussion delves into the right to health as interpreted by the United Nations and highlights the inclusive nature of this right, covering various determinants such as access to healthcare, safe water, sanitation, nutrition, housing, and participation in health-related decision-making. The text further explores the Bolam test, which assesses medical negligence, and its criticisms. It also discusses the distinction between civil and criminal liability for medical negligence, providing examples from legal jurisdictions such as England, India, and Pakistan.Marbury v. Madison (1803): This landmark case in the United States established the principle of judicial review, empowering the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in this case solidified the Court's role as the final arbiter of the Constitution. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. This decision overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and was a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement. Roe v. Wade (1973): This landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court established a woman's legal right to have an abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It invalidated many state and federal laws restricting abortion rights, establishing a framework for abortion regulation. Miranda v. Arizona (1966): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights before being interrogated. This decision led to the widespread adoption of "Miranda rights" and significantly impacted criminal procedure in the United States. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): This case reaffirmed the individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense, incorporating the Second Amendment's right to bear arms against state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): While initially establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine, this decision was later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954) as unconstitutional. Plessy v. Ferguson remains a significant precedent in the history of civil rights and equal protection under the law. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine of implied powers and upheld the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion emphasized the supremacy of federal law over state law. These precedents, among many others, have shaped legal principles and influenced the development of law in various jurisdictions. They serve as guiding principles for courts when deciding similar cases in the future. The text concludes by examining the jurisdiction of the Punjab Healthcare Commission, its powers, and the legal limitations on filing cases against healthcare service providers. It emphasizes the need for prima facie evidence to support criminal charges of negligence and raises questions about the adequacy of the evidence against the Petitioners in the present case, especially regarding the qualifications of one of the doctors and the circumstances leading to the patient's death.

Summary: No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings related to provision of healthcare services shall lie against a healthcare service provider except under Punjab Public Health Care Commission Act, 2010--The case involves the death of a newborn baby girl who was administered a drip at a childcare center owned by the petitioner. The complainant, Noor Murtaza, initially filed a complaint with the police, which was later referred to the Punjab Healthcare Commission (the Commission) due to its nature. The Commission found the petitioner guilty of malpractice and medical negligence, imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000. The petitioner argued that the order was passed in a slipshod manner, and since the complaint pertained to medical practice, it falls under the exclusive domain of the Commission. He cites legal precedents to support his contention. The respondents argue that the order is legally sound, as the petitioner's actions could constitute a cognizable offense under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The court examined the Punjab Public Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, and notes that the Act aims to improve healthcare services and prohibit quackery. The functions and powers of the Commission included monitoring and regulating the quality and standards of healthcare services and investigating maladministration, malpractice, and failures. The court concluded that complaints against medical practitioners fall within the exclusive domain of the Commission. It highlighted the Act's provisions and sets aside the order, emphasizing that the Commission has the authority to handle such matters.

Summary: The petitioner sued for damages amounting to Rs.11,000,000, citing a false laboratory report from the respondent, which indicated positive results for P-ANCA and C-ANCA antibodies, suggesting a serious illness. The petitioner claimed to have suffered mental distress and incurred financial losses due to subsequent tests in the UK, which reported negative results. The trial court partially granted relief for travel expenses but dismissed other claims. On appeal, the decision was overturned, prompting the petitioner's revision petition. The petitioner argued the evidence supported his claims of stress and financial loss, alleging the respondent's report was incorrect. In response, the respondent denied negligence, stating the tests were part of a comprehensive diagnosis. The court noted inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims, questioning the basis for the tests and the subsequent actions taken. It emphasized the need for clinical correlation and expert testimony, which the petitioner failed to provide. The court concluded that the respondent acted professionally, and subsequent tests confirmed their accuracy. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed affirming the trial court's decision.

Summary: The petitioner was accused of conducting illegal kidney transplants that led to the deaths of two patients. The FIR was registered under sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2010, and section 109 PPC. The petitioner argued that the FIR could not be registered without a complaint from the Monitoring Authority or an aggrieved person as per section 14(2) of the Act. Additionally, the petitioner contested the authority of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to conduct the investigation. The court clarified that the registration of an FIR and the taking of cognizance by a court are separate processes. While section 14(2) of the Act governs the court's cognizance, it does not prohibit reporting the offense to the police or initiating an investigation. The court also cited a precedent "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and others v. Mian ASIM FAREED and others" (2006 S C M R 483) emphasizing that the registration of an FIR and taking cognizance are distinct concepts. Regarding the FIA's authority, the court noted that the Ministry of Interior had authorized the agency to investigate offenses under the Transplantation Human Organ and Tissue Act 2010. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly. The petitioner was advised to avail himself of remedies under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure if he believed he was falsely implicated.