1995 P Cr (PLP)

Brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. No.371 of 1994, dated 15-3-1994 under sections 420/506 and 379, P.P.C. Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad was registered against the petitioner and his two brothers at the instance of Muhammad Yasin.

2. According to F.I.R. the petitioner agreed to sell a shop to the complainant and his brother for a consideration of Rs.24 lacs; allegedly the amount was paid to the petitioner etc. and it was agreed that the shop would be got registered in the name of the complainant; the petitioner kept on promising for 7/8 months. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that a cheque amounting to Rs.87,000 was given to the petitioner and later on Rs.87,000 was paid in cash to him; the cheque was returned to the complainant which was allegedly stolen by the petitioner alongwith other documents. It was further reported that the present petitioner went to Saudi Arabia and the complainant came to know one year ago that the petitioner has returned from Saudi Arabia; the complainant asked the petitioner for registration of the shop in dispute which the petitioner refused and also threatened the complainant for dire consequences. As per version of the complainant, the disputed shop belonged to Raja Muhammad Afzal and the petitioner has cheated him for selling the shop.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record with their able assistance. It is an admitted that an agreement was written down between the petitioner and Muhammad Yasin (complainant) and his brother Mushtaq Ahmed on 20-7-1993 regarding sale of shop No.P/83/125 Mohallah Jillani Puri Satiana Road, Faisalabad wherein it is stated that the petitioner had sold the said shop in January, 1991 and possession was delivered to the other party and a sum of Rs.24 lacs as price of the shop had been received by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner in January, 1992 received a sum of Rs.15,864 as from the other party and promised to return the amount in near future but the petitioner could not repay the amount; hence the petitioner agreed that the amount is still payable and is responsible for its payment and if he could not pay the amount, his legal heirs would be bound to repay the said loan. The said agreement is duly signed by the petitioner as well as by the complainant, witnessed by four witnesses and attested by a Notary Public. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Muhammad Yasin etc. Mian Muhammad Aslam, Advocate on behalf of the complainant made a statement before the learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad on 3-4-1994 that the disputed amount would not be recovered from the petitioner through unlawful means but reserved the right of legal proceedings in accordance with law and as such the civil suit was disposed.

4. Muhammad Yasin, complainant, moved an Application No.151-SP/C/ 22294 Diary No.329-3-30-9/22294 for registration of case against the petition which was disposed of by D.S.P. Circle Peoples Colony being a case of civil nature and not disclosing commission of cognizable offence. Respondent No. 1 S.H.O. after the finding of the D.S.P. registered the case through the impugned F.I.R. I have considered the facts carefully stated in the complaint which was made basis of the impugned F.I.R. in the background of dispute between the parties. A recital of all the facts above indicate that the provisions of Pakistan Penal Code mentioned in the F.I.R. are not attracted. The provisions of sections 154 and 155, Cr.P.C. do not require an officer-in-charge of police station to reduce into writing any information which has been given to him but such an information must relate to the commission of offence. Once the D.S.P. of the Circle had given his finding after, investigation of the case, registration of case by a subordinate Officer of the Circle, in fact. Tantamounts to misconduct. It is crystal clear that respondent S.H.O. was instrumental in the hands of the complainant in initiating criminal proceedings by registering the impugned F.I.R. The contention of learned counsel for the State that petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not competent is without any force. The functionaries sitting in police station do come within the purview of Article 199of the Constitution. They are most certainly persons connected with the affairs of the Centre or the Province amenable to the directions issued by High Court under the Constitution and their actions arc also in no case sacrosanct so as to be excluded from judicial scrutiny. The outcome of above discussion is that matter being purely of civil nature, the initiation of criminal proceedings by registering the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner and other; was a clear misuse of process of law as no offence prima facie can be said to be made out upon hare reading of the F.I.R. The petition is, therefore, accepted and as a natural corollary F.I.R No.371 of 1994, dated 15-3-1994 Police Station, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad is quashed. N.H.Q./M-1987/L Petition accepted.