P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

Nemo for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing : 6th August 1962. This is a petition in revision (sic.) by Umar Khan, who is the Chairman of the Union Council, Tando Rahim .Yar Khan and against whom a complaint under section 118, P. P. C. was submitted by the S. H. O. of Tando Rahim Yar Khan on the allegation that he having fully known or having reason to believe that the parties to a dispute would commit or intended to commit murders, illegally omitted to inform the police or the nearest Magistrate who would have taken preventive measures against the parties, and thus the murders would have been avoided.

2. The facts are that one Ali Khan was suspected of having illicit intimacy with Mst. Sahibzadi, sister of Usman, and as a result thereof, there was tension between the deceased and the relations of Mst. Sahibzadi. The petitioner, Umer Khan, as Chairman of the Union Council, arbitrated between the parties, but the parties did not accept his award and the relations between the parties remained strained. On the 21st of August 1961, Ali Khan was murdered as a case of karo kari, and the parties were challaned by the S. H. O. The burden of the complaint is that the petitioner fully knew or had reason to believe that the parties will commit or intend to commit murders by not abiding to his faisla, and committed an offence under section 118, P. P. C., by not giving information to the police or to the nearest Magistrate.

3. It is contended in this revision petition that sec tion 118, P. P. C. has no application to the facts of the case. This section is applicable where a person intend ing to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, voluntarily conceals by any act or illegal omission the existence of a design to commit such an offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design. This section can by no stretch of imagination apply to the facts of this case. (It is not understood how a complaint was made directly to the Magistrate when an offence under section 118, P. P. C. is cognizable, and the accused could have been challaned by the Police). There is no case that the petitioner intended to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of the offence of murder and voluntarily concealed the existence of a design to commit such an offence by any act or illegal omission.

4. Under section 44, Cr. P. C., every person aware of the commission or of an intention of any other person to commit an offence punishable under section 302, P. P. C. shall forthwith give information to the nearest Magistrate or Police Officer of such commission or intention. The omission to give such informa tion is punishable under section 176, P. P. C. The petitioner has not been charged with these facts. By the mere existence of bad blood between the parties, it is not necessary that a person should conclude that one of the parties to a dispute intends to commit murder. Normally a person may know that they are likely to commit a breach of the peace for which action can be taken under section 107, Cr. P. C., but section 107, Cr. P. C. is not mentioned in section 44, Cr, P. C.

5. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the State that as evidence has not been recorded I should not interfere under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. and quash the proceedings. He has not been able to show that there is evidence to prove that the petitioner has been informed that a murder was going to be committed, and that he failed to give information, and thereby violated either section 44, Cr. P. C. or section 118, P. P. C,

6. I, therefore, consider that the proceedings pending against the petitioner are an abuse of the process of the Court and quash them. K. B. A. Proceedings quashed.