1989 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Nazir Janjua for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988. An inquiry was held by Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore Cantt. into the genuineness or otherwise of P.T.D. 1675, dated 19‑6‑1965 purporting to have been issued in favour of Muhammad Ashraf respondent No.1 in respect of a plot bearing Khasra No.5411. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) found that it was bogus and a fraudulent document. Consequently vide letter No. 193, dated 19‑1‑1987 he ordered the registration of a criminal case against Muhammad Ashraf respondent No.1 whereupon case F.I.R. No. 33/87 was registered at Police Station Mozang, Lahore under sections 420, 468 and 471., P.P.C. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) by letter No. 424, dated 19‑2‑1987 asked Superintendent Police, Lahore Cantt. to stop further action in the matter. The said order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) was challenged in revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore but the same was dismissed by order, dated 8‑8‑1987 by Haji Muhammad Ashraf Butt, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. Hence this writ petition.

2. According to Aman Ullah A.S.I. Police Station Mozang following the completion of investigation challan has been submitted in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Lahore. In this view of the matter, it would a futile exercise to test the vires of the order, dated 19th February, 1987 by which the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore Cantt. had directed the Superintendent of Police Cantt. to stop further action in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the criminal machinery had been set in motion no power vested in the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) to order its stoppage and the police were competent to proceed with the investigation and submit report to the Court for or against the accused and it would be for the trial Court to see whether there is sufficient material for taking cognizance of the offence or for cancellation of the case or passing orders under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has contested the petition. According to him the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) was competent to direct stoppage of further action in the case as after an inquiry he had reached the conclusion that no case was made out against the respondent.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since the challan has been submitted in Court it would be proper for the respondent to apply to the trial Court for cancellation of the case or for his acquittal under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. If any such petition is moved on behalf of the respondent the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law and see as to whether it can legally proceed with the trial and as to whether there is any material against the respondent.

5. The petition is disposed of with the above observations. M.Y.H,/1‑139/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.