1982 P Cr (PLP)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 19th May, 1981. Sh. Khurshid Akhtar. Senior Assistant in the Awami Autos Ltd. Lahore has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Consitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Provisional Consitution Order 1 of 1981 with a prayer that the respondents be directed to refrain from harassing the petitioner without due process of law with any other appropriate relief which the Court may deem proper and reasonable in the circumstances of the case be awarded.

2. The petitioner is a President of the Employees' Union which office he has enjoyed for the last 13 years. His grievance is that one Khalid Tanvir, S. R. assistant, respondent No. 3 is not getting on well with him and as such he, in connivance with respondents Nos. 4 to 6 who are employees of the Awami Autos Ltd., has been repeatedly giving false and frivolous applications to the Federal Investigating Agency against him simply to make his life miserable.

3. By my order dated 19th April, 1981, 1 sent for respondent No. 2 on 27th April, 1981. M. Muhammad Jafar Khan, Deputy Director, F. I. A. appeared who was directed to submit his comments within a fortnight. This has been done. According to the comments, in the concluding paragraph, it was submitted that since an inquiry into the same allegations has already been held by the State Bank Circle F. I. A. Lahore, it has been therefore, decided not to hold the present inquiry. The Director Central Zone, F. I. A. Lahore has ordered to file it.

4. The report was perused by the petitioner as well as his counsel. The petitioner was satisfied to some extent but submitted that a specific direction should be given to the respondents particularly to respondent No. 3 restraining him from filing any false and frivolous application in future because the petitioner apprehended that sooner or later there will be some fresh application as this has been the practice in the past.

5. I don't think there is any need to give any specific direction t any of the respondents because while it is the duty of the Investigating Agency to inquire into an allegation against an accused it is also for them to see that no law abiding citizen is harassed unnecessarily or humiliated by false and frivolous applications. As a matter of fact if the Investigating, Agency is competent to inquire into the allegations against a person, it is equally competent to take action against the person who puts the law in motion mala fide: It is inalienable right of a law‑abiding citizen to enjoy the protection of law and the F. I. A. as such is duty bound to provide this protection.

6. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.