2026 PLP 131 (YLR)

Raja Shakeel Ahmed, J.

The above titled Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/State for setting aside the impugned order dated 29-06-2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Nagar in Criminal Case No. 01/2024 wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate Nagar has acquitted the respondents/accused. Being aggrieved from the impugned order/judgment dated 29-06-2024, appellant/complainant filed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court.

2. Briefly stated facts according to the case file are that, on 13/08/2023 at 1700hrs, about the respondents/accused along with some others were protesting and blocked the main KKH Road demanding for restoration of SCO internet service and water channel of Mouza Chalt. The respondents/accused did not clear the road for more than four hours, causing hindrance in traffic flow, upon which the police lodged FIR No. 06/2023 against the respondents/accused. During trial the learned Judicial Magistrate Nagar acquitted the respondent/ accused vide order dated 29-06-2024. Being aggrieved from the order/judgment of the learned trial Court, the appellant/State filed the instant criminal appeal.

3. The learned Addl.AG contended that the accused/respondents are directly nominated in the FIR with specified roles but the learned Judicial Magistrate Nagar has acquitted the respondents/accused, which is contrary to the facts, evidence on record and law. He further contended that the respondents/accused have to submit applications before the concern forums firstly and then go for protest, if their grievances did not redress by the concern forums. The learned Addl.AG further contended that, the respondents/ accused have violated section 144 Cr.P.C by protesting and blocking the main KKH, owing to this act of the respondents/ accused, the passengers were caused inconvenience. The learned Addl.AG argued that the prosecution witnesses have fully charged the respondents/accused for the offences mentioned in the FIR. The learned Addl.AG further contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate Nagar has erred to hold that FIR is not permissible under section 195(1) Cr.P.C in offence under section 188 P.P.C but when cognizable and non-cognizable offences are committed simultaneously, then FIR is registered jointly for both offences instead of filing complaint as such the impugned order is not maintainable and is liable to be set-aside. He lastly prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 29-06-2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Nagar by accepting the instant Appeal.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents/accused vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned Addl.AG and contended that the respondents/accused are innocent and falsely implicated in the FIR No. 06/2023 with mala fide intentions. He further contended that the respondents/accused were engaged in a peaceful protest demanding the restoration of the SCO service and the water channel, and that they did not block the road. The protest took place outside the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagar, which is located on the main Karakoram Highway (KKH), while traffic continued to flow normally. He further contended that the prosecution failed to associate any private witness which manifests the mala fide of the prosecution to falsely implicate the present respondents/accused in the instant case. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the respondents/accused prayed for dismissal of the instant Appeal.

5. Arguments pro and contra heard at length with able assistance of the learned Counsel for parties.

6. Perusal of the record shows that respondents/ accused along with other 40/50 people have been booked in FIR No. 06/2023 under sections 341, 147, 186, 188 and 143 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Sikandarabad Nagar. After going through the contents of the FIR and evidence collected by the prosecution available in case file it is found that, in the instant case section 147 is not applicable, because four ingredients as defined in the section 141 of P.P.C regarding unlawful assembly have not been established specially use of criminal force by the accused during protest is missing. There is no statement available on case file regarding any person who was prevented from proceedings in any direction in which he was right to proceed, hence the attraction of section 341 in the FIR against the accused/respondents was also not justified. As for sections 186 and 188 P.P.C mentioned in FIR are concerned it is settled law that no police officer is authorized to register FIR for the violation of section 144 Cr.P.C unless complaint in writing was made by the authority in terms of section 195 1(a) Cr. P.C which stipulates that, No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of Pakistan Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. A

7. Section 249-A Cr. P.C categorically empowers, Magistrate of acquitting the accused persons at any stage of the case, if after hearing the prosecutor and the accused; for reasons to be recorded, he considers that, the charge is groundless or that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence, which has judiciously done by him after hearing the parties. In the light of my above observations, in the instant case, after full trial of the matter in my humble view also, there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence mentioned in the FIR as such the further proceedings in the court amount to wastage of time and abuse of process of the Court. A

8. What emerges from the above discussion is that there is nothing wrong with the judgment of the learned trial Court. In this view of the matter, finding no substance in the appeal, I dismiss the same being devoid of any merit. File. JK/23/GB Appeal dismissed.