2012 PLP 114 (MLD)
M. SHARIF — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 114 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | M. SHARIF — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 114 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 114 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 114 (MLD) (M. SHARIF — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Nasir Mahmood Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.195 & 561-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 188
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant
Quashing of F.I.R.
Even, if the offence under S.188, P.P.C. had been declared cognizable, the fact would remain that S.195(1)(a), Cr.P.C., had not provided that no court was competent to take cognizance of the offence under Ss.172 to 188, P.P.C., unless a complaint in writing was made by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he was subordinate
F.I.R. was lodged on the statement of private person
Registration of impugned F.I.R., in circumstances was violative to provision of S.195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. and was void ab initio
Mere forwarding of challan to the Trial Court was no hurdle in quashing of F.I.R. lodged violative to provisions of S.195(1)(a), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.
Muhammad Sharif petitioner/ accused in case F. I. R. No. 301 of 2011, dated 8-6-2011, under section 188, P.P.C., Police Station Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar has sought for quashing of the above noted F.I.R. on the ground that complainant being a private person was not competent to lodge the impugned F.I.R. under section 188, P.P.C. as barred by section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned A.A.-G. has resisted this petition on the grounds that the offence under section 188, P.P.C. has been declared cognizable; that challan under section 173, Cr.P.C. has been sent up and that the petitioner can seek efficacious remedy before the trial court if so desired.
3. I have given patient hearing to learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AAG for the State and perused the record.
4. Precisely allegation against the petitioner/accused in the F.I.R. is that he being tenant of the land owned by the complainant removed the harvested wheat crop without disbursing share of the complainant/ owner of the land.
5. Even if the offence under section 188, P.P.C. has been declared cognizable the fact remains that no amendment is made in the corresponding provision of section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. till date. Section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. provides that no court is competent to take cognizance of the offence under section 172, P.P.C. to 188, P.P.C. unless a complaint in writing was made by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he was subordinate. Admittedly, instant F.I.R. is lodged on the statement of private person, namely, Falak Sher complainant, therefore, registration of impugned F.I.R. is violative to the provisions of section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. and thus void ab initio. Argument of learned AAG for the State that challan has been sent up and the petitioner can avail the remedy under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. before the trial court is also devoid of any force. The words "no court shall take cognizance" used in the provision of section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. makes it crystal clear that mere forwarding of challan to the trial court is no hurdle in quashing of F.I.R. lodged violative to the above cited provision of section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C.
6. For the foregoing discussion and reasons this constitutional petition is allowed and F.I.R. in question as well as proceedings initiated on the basis of said F.I.R. are hereby quashed. H.B.T./M-339/L Petition allowed.