1976L38 (PLP)

This is a petition for quashment of proceedings pending against the petitioner under section 182, P. P. C. before the Tehsildar, Khanewal with powers of a Magistrate Second Class.

2. The petitioner is the husband of one Mst. Sajida Perveen or Sajida Begum who was named as an accused in a complaint filed by one Muhammad Ismail under sections 342, 380 and 452, P. P. C. The Magistrate, before whom the complaint was presented, summoned the accused for 15th of October 1974, and the petitioner made an endorsement on the back of the summons that he would produce his wife Sajida Perveen before the Magistrate on 15th of October 1974. On that date, Mst. Sajida was unwell and the petitioner after obtaining a certificate of her illness appeared before the Magistrate himself. In the medical certificate the name of the petitioner's wife was mentioned as Sajida Begum and the petitioner's name was mentioned as Khurshid Alam. In the complaint, Sajida Begum was mentioned as wife of Khurshid Ahmad, caste Mughal. The petitioner informed the Magistrate that his wife's name was Sajida Begum and that his own name was Khurshid Alam and that his caste was Khokhar. He also produced two identity cards issued by the Central Government showing the name of the petitioner as Khurshid Alam and that of his wife as Sajida Begum. The petitioner along with the identity cards presented an application to the Magistrate that the police be asked not to compel him to produce his ailing wife in Court in place of Sajida Perveen and further said that if his wife was required in any case, proper orders may be passed. The learned Magistrate after taking down the statement of Khurahid Alain, petitioner, wrote an order directing his prosecution under section 182, P. P. C. and entrusted the case to the Tehsildar, Khanewal. The petitioner was ordered to furnish bail in the sum of Rs. 2,000 failing which he was to be kept in judicial lock-up.

3. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I find that the proceedings taken in this case against the petitioner were entirely unsustain able in law and atrocious in nature. In the first instance, section 182, P. P. C. is not applicable to the facts of the case. It applies to a case where false information is imparted to a public servant with intent to cause that public servant to use his lawful powers to the injury of another person. The petitioner in this case had only insisted that his name and that of his wife and their caste were not correctly mentioned in the complaint, and in proof thereof he produced identity cards. No false information was imparted. In the written application that he gave to learned Magistrate he had said that if his wife was required in some case proper orders may be passed. It was the right of the petitioner to insist that process should contain the correct particulars of his wife. The best course for the learned Magistrate should have been to direct the complainant to correct the name and other particulars of Sajida in accordance with her identity card. There was no prayer by the petitioner to the Magistrate to use his public powers to the injury of any person.

4. The learned State Counsel has pointed out another vital defect which goes to the root of this case. Under section 195, Cr. P. C. a formal complaint in writing by the public servant concerned has to be presented before a Magistrate who is to deal with it in the manner prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no formal complaint in this case and the Magistrate ordered the prosecution of the petitioner himself and entrusted the case for hearing to the Tehsildar, Khanewal leaving no option to the latter to deal with the matter according to law. A complaint under section 195, Cr. P. C. is the condition precedent for initiation of proceedings under section 182, P. P. C. The absence of such a complaint is fatal to the proceed ings. I, therefore, find that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are wholly unsustainable and I order that they shall stand quashed.

5. The Magistrate in this case has evinced disposition entirely unsuited to a judicial officer. The Registrar shall call for his explanation and ask him to show cause why his magisterial powers should not be with drawn. S. Q. Petition accepted.