2013 P Cr (PLP)

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.

The Petitioner, namely, Saif-ur-Rahman, through this Quashment Petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has challenged and prayed for the deletion of that portion of the order dated 21-12-2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I. Khan wherein it was directed that the petitioner be prosecuted under sections 193/195/203, P.P.C. by invoking the provision of section 476, Cr.P.C. and to treat the order ibid as complaint under section 476-A, Cr.P.C. read with section 195, Cr.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been wrongly proposed as an accused in the order dated 21-12-2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I. Khan; that the petitioner was posted as ASI in the police station Yarik and was transferred on 8-10-2011 from the said Police Station to Police Station Dera Town and the same day assumed the charge but accused Abdus Sattar was not in the custody of Police Station Dera Town; that the accused Abdus Sattar was arrested in a raid on his house on 14-10-2011 and accordingly F.I.R. No.292 was chalked out; that the news clippings are the mere imagination of the news editors and nothing more; that the accused Abdus Sattar has never lodged any complaint against his illegal confinement/custody of the police and thus the false information attributed to the petitioner regarding the commission of offence by the learned Judge and simultaneously ordering for initiating inquiry and trial against the petitioner are not in accordance with law and liable to be expunged from the said order.

3. The learned D.A.-G. strongly opposed the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and argued that in view of the reports published in two newspapers regarding the arrest of accused Abdus Sattar on 6-10-2011 and the recovery of arms, ammunitions and explosives from him the same very day put to naught the registration of F.I.R. by petitioner on 19-10-2011 and the alleged recovery of the same very arms and ammunitions from him.

4. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate-General.

5. As per the F.I.R., the petitioner as SHO of Police Station Dera Town D.I. Khan reported that on 14-10-2011 at 1500 hours, on the report of informer under the charge of DSPs City, Kulachi and Headquarter along with police party, a search operation was conducted in the hope of arresting proclaimed offender Imran Gandapur, involved in various cases of sectarianism and terrorism as well as members of his gang and in this regard they raided the house of accused Abdus Sattar and found there a rocket launcher, 6 rounds of rocket launcher, gun powder weighing one kilogram, prima wire five feet long, which were allegedly kept for some terrorist designs and accordingly an F.I.R. No.272 was chalked out. However, strangely enough, the same very story had already beer reported verbatim in two local Urdu newspapers, i.e. Daily Tauqeer and Daily Rehbar on 6-10-2011 i.e. eight days prior to the registration of the F.I.R. It was during the course of passing bail granting order of the accused Abdus Sattar on 21-12-2011 that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I. Khan made the impugned observations regarding the conduct of the petitioner having given false information/evidence viz. the commission of offence and accordingly the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I. Khan held that the act on the part of petitioner is punishable under sections 193/195/203, P.P.C. by invoking the provisions of section 476, Cr.P.C. and directed to treat his order dated 21-12-2011 as complaint under section 476-A, Cr.P.C., read with section 195, P.P.C. and further ordered for initiating proceedings against the petitioner by way of separate trial as well as inquiry into the matter.

6. The observations made in the order dated 21-12-2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I. Khan are the direct outcome of the F.I.R. No.272 dated 14-10-2011 as well as the press reports dated 6-10-2011. Accordingly if the prayer of the petitioner for expunction/ deletion of the remarks of the learned Judge is acceded to, the same may in turn adversely effect the trial proceedings in the F.I.R. ibid. In such situation the court has to exercise judicial restrain and let the law take its own course.

7. The points agitated in this petition and those raised today at the bar could be taken up before the trial Court and if found correct, the petitioner may be acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. or for that matter under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case may be.

8. As such, I find no substance in this petition which is hereby dismissed. MWA/94/P Petition dismissed.