PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has rejected the plea of a leading real estate development company for quashing of a case registered against it last year in Peshawar for allegedly launching a housing scheme without taking no objection certificate (NOC) from the relevant tehsil municipal administration.

A bench consisting of PHC Chief Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Wiqar Ahmad rejected the petition filed by a director of Bahria Town, Hamid Riaz, ruling that the petitioner could raise his grievance before the relevant trial court at the time of framing of charge against him.

The petitioner requested for quashing of the FIR registered at Mathra police station on Sep 21, 2023, under different sections of Pakistan Penal Code, wherein the petitioner company was accused of cheating public at large by starting a housing scheme without NOC.

The petitioner’s counsel stated that a letter was sent by TMA Mathra on Sep 13, 2023, to Peshawar deputy commissioner for taking legal action against the directors of Bahria Town on the ground that it had launched a housing scheme without obtaining NOC from the TMA, which was violation of rules 72 and 77 of KP Government (Private Housing Scheme Management and Regulation) Rules, 2021, and section 66 of KP Local Government Act, 2013.

Bench rules petitioner can raise grievance before trial court

He said that the letter was forwarded to Mathra police station which was initially incorporated in daily diary on Sep 21, 2023, and subsequently converted into an FIR.

He argued that Bahria Town and its partner real estate agent, Life Style Development, filed a civil suit against TMA Peshawar in the civil court wherein the letter of Sep 13, 2023 of the TMA was suspended. However, he said that despite the stay order, the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioner.

He argued that the sections of PPC incorporated in the FIR couldn’t be applied to the instant issue and at the most, if any offence was made out, the same would be under relevant sections of KP Local Government Act. He added that the FIR had no legal sanctity and was liable to be quashed.

The TMA claimed that the FIR was already registered when the operation of its letter was suspended by the civil judge. It added that Bahria Town without obtaining NOC started inviting people for investment in the housing scheme and thus it was found involved in cheating and forgery.

“As investigation in the case is complete and challan has already been submitted against the accused, therefore, the trial court would be in a better position to decide fate of the case,” the bench ruled.

It observed that in case the petitioner considered that there was no probability of his being convicted of any offence, he may invoke provisions of section 249-A of 249-K of Code of Criminal procedure, as the case may be, before the trial court. The said two provisions empower a trial court to acquit an accused at any stage of trial if there is no probability of his conviction.

The bench ruled that as the petitioner was having an alternate and efficacious remedy under the law, he could not press into service the constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 1999 of the Constitution, which was normally exercised when an aggrieved person had no alternate remedy under the law.

About argument of the petitioner’s counsel that wrong sections of law were inserted in the FIR, the bench observed that it was not the domain of that court to insert or extract or correct sections of law in FIRs in its constitutional jurisdiction.

Published in Dawn, November 28th, 2024