P L D 2024 Balochistan 142 (PLP)

NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, J.

Through this petition, the petitioners Muhammadullah alias Samsool, son of Muhammad Haleem, and Attaullah, son of Khan Muhammad, seek to quash FIR No.92/2023, dated 4th August 2023, under sections 124-A, 147, 149,153, 153-A and 341, P.P.C. read with sections 3 and 4 of Balochistan Regulation & Control of Loudspeakers and Sound Amplifiers Ordinance, 1965, registered at P.S. City Pishin.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their assistance.

3. Facts of the case are that under the murasla by SI-Saadullah (respondent No.1), the police registered a criminal case vide FIR No. 92/ 2023, at P.S. City Pishin, wherein the complainant alleged that on the fateful day of the incident, i.e. 4th August 2023, he along with his subordinates were on security duty, at about 5:oo p.m. the workers of Pashtoon Tahaffuz Movement (P.T.M.) including the petitioners gathered at Bye pass road near Mulla Fazil Masjid who delivered speeches against the Government, Pakistani Forces, Security Agencies, and wanted to provoke people. As a result, the instant case was registered against accused (petitioners). Hence, this petition.

4. The record reflects that the police registered a criminal case with the allegation of hateful speeches, order violation, promulgating, and promoting feelings of hatred amongst different racial regional groups and communities. It is relevant to note here that prosecution for offences against the State as mentioned above, no Court can take cognizance of the same, unless upon complaint made by order of, or in the authority from the Federal or Provincial Government concerned. The process governed by section 196 of the Cr.P.C. is as under: "

196. Prosecution for offences against the State. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter VI or IX-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (except Section 127) or punishable under Section 108- A, or section 153-A, or section 294-A, or Section 295-A or Section 505 of the same Code, unless upon complaint made by order of or under authority from, the Federal Government, or the Provincial Government concerned, or some officer empowered in this behalf by either of the two Governments."

5. No doubt, the State has to prevent a person from doing any act to show that such action is expressly prohibited by law but provides the fundamental right to freedom of assembly, association, and speech, provided and protected under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter "the Constitution"). Freedom of assembly has been protected under Article 16 of the Constitution, that every citizen shall have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order. Similarly, freedom of association is prescribed and protected under Article 17 of the Constitution with the language that every citizen shall have the right to form associations or unions, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, public order, or morality. Every citizen, not being in the service of Pakistan, shall have the right to form or be a member of a political party, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, and such law shall provide that where the Federal Government declares that any political party has been formed or is operating in a manner prejudicial to the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, the Federal Government shall within fifteen days of such declaration, refer the matter to the Supreme Court whose decision on such reference shall be final. Likewise, freedom of speech is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, which means that every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. There shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security, or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, a commission of, or incitement of an offense.

6. In the instant case, the petitioners seek to quash FIR registered against them mainly on the ground that cognizance for offenses mentioned hereinabove can only be taken upon a complaint filed by the authority of a Federal or Provincial Government or some other officer empowered in this behalf, which has not been done in the present case, no Court thus; can initiate process against the accused, because in the present case FIR was registered by the Duty Officer/Sub-Inspector of P.S. concerned, on his own and, competent authority under the law has not initiated said process; can be assailed in Writ jurisdiction of this Court to prevent abuse of process of any Court to secure the ends of Justice. No doubt, the inherent power should be rarely and sparingly invoked only in the interest of Justice to redress grievances for which, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no other procedure or remedy is available. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction that cannot override provisions of the Court, but issues may arise where demands of Justice require immediate, honest, and substantial Justice. In such circumstances, the Courts would be justified to exercise their jurisdiction to save a party from harassment and abuse of the process of Court. Such a power may be used sparingly, but it confers broad powers on the Court to meet such eventualities and pass any order which ends of Justice may require. The case in hand, in our perception, falls within the parameters referred to above.

7. It is to be noted that the allegations contained in the FIR are general; there is no specific role attributed to the petitioners and no offense, thus, has been made nor can be proved against them.

8. By looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court concludes that the process of the law has been abused with mala fide intention to scandalize and create harassment for the petitioners and disrepute them in the society, which needs interference by this Court.

9. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition filed by the petitioners Muhammadullah alias Samsool and Attaullah, son of Khan Muhammad, is allowed, and the FIR No.92/2023, dated 4th August 2023, registered at P.S. City Pishin, and proceedings to it stands quashed. Order accordingly. MQ/41/Bal. Petition allowed.