1995 PLP 1080 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Aslam Ramay for Petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 S.H.O. has neither summoned the accused nor arrested them and with mala fide and for some ulterior purpose, declared them innocent.

2. Inspector Iqbal Noon, S.H.O. is present with record. He states that though Muhammad Sadiq and Hameedan were not arrested yet during investigation, they were found innocent and were left off. He further states that no report either under section 169, 170 or 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted to the learned Magistrate.

3. The action of the S.H.O. is in contravention of the provisions of section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provide that if it appears to the officer in charge of the police station, or to the police officer making the investigation that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground or suspicion to justify forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, may release him on his executing bond, with or without sureties. According to report of the S.H.O. dated 17‑1‑1995 Muhammad Sadiq and Mst. Hameedan have been found innocent but there is nothing on record to show that they have either been let off on their executing bail bonds with or without sureties. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Habib v. The State 1983 SCMR 370 that whatever course the Investigating Officer adopts, that is, under section 169 or section 170, Cr.P.C. it is incumbent upon him to submit report under section 173, Cr.P.C. with regard to result of his investigation to a competent Magistrate.

4. The main accused in the F.I.R. is Ali Ahmad. There is no material available to suggest that any effort has been made for his arrest rather according to S.H.O., his whereabouts are not known. Mere filing of a suit for dissolution of marriage and that too after the date of occurrence of commission of offence is of no avail and cannot be made a ground for declaring the accused innocent. It has also been brought on record that Mst. Irshad Bibi, the alleged detenu, got herself lodged in Darul Aman at Faisalabad. She was married at Bahawalpur and her relatives are also resident of Yazman, therefore, filing of the suit and staying in Darul Aman, at Faisalabad is a device to save skin from the rigours of law. Admittedly F.I.R. No.25 of 1994 was registered on 24‑12‑1994 with regard to abduction of Irshad Bibi on 4‑12‑1994 while she' has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage at Faisalabad on 6‑12‑1994. The finding of the S.H.O. that as Irshad Bibi has files a suit for dissolution of marriage and is residing in Darul Aman and as such the complaint of the complainant appears to be doubtful, amounts to giving premium to the accused.

5. It is unique illustration of highhandedness on the part of the police to destroy the prosecution case inasmuch as whereabouts of the main nominated accused are not known what to say of his arrest and further investigation. In these circumstances, therefore, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Bahawalpur is directed to hold an enquiry into the conduct of S.H.O. respondent No. 1 and submit a report under his own signature with regard to the actions taken against him. He shall also have investigation of case F.I.R. No.25 dated 24‑12‑1994 Police Station Yazman conducted by some senior police officer and report in accordance with law shall be submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction. With these directions, writ petition is disposed. N.H.Q./M‑1978/L Order accordingly.