1. This criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A, Cr . P . C . has been preferred against the order passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South in Criminal Revision Application No,1 of 2002, whereby he refused to interfere with the order dated 3-12-2001 passed by Xth Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South, whereby he had accepted the report submitted by 'Investigating Officer under section 173, Cr.P.C, recommending thereby for disposing of the F.I.R. No,186 of 2001, in B Class, lodged by Muhammad Shahzad applicant/ accused.
2. Brief facts of this case are that applicant/accused (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) lodged first information report under sections 506-B, 109, P.P.C. with Civil Lines Police on 6-11-2001, stating therein that while at about 8-20 p.m., on 5-11-2001, he was going in his Sunny Nissan Car via Clifton Bridge, he was stopped by two young motorcyclisis who were aimed with TT pistols. They abused him and issued threats as to why he had launched dispute against Siddiq Bilwani. The complainant accelerated speed of his car and went to police station. He further stated that those boys chased him but when he reached near police station, they turned their motorcycle and made escape. He further stated that if any damage is caused to his life or property, the said Siddiq Bilwani be held responsible.
3. After lodging F.I.R., the police took up investigation and submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. to the concerned Judicial Magistrate X, Karachi South, who by its order dated 3A2-2001, accepted the report of police and recommended that action under section 182, P.P.C. be initiated against applicant and his F.I.R. being Crime No,186 of 2001 be disposed of in B Class.
4. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of Judicial Magistrate, the applicant filed criminal revision in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi South which was heard by IIIrd Additional. Sessions Judge, Karachi South and was ultimately dismissed on 15-2-2002, whereby the order passed by Judicial Magistrate X was maintained.
5. This application is preferred against the aforesaid orders for setting aside the same and the action under section 182, P.P.C. may be stopped.
6. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Irfan learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Waheed Kazi for respondent No,2 as well as Mr. Sardaruddin Qureshi learned counsel appearing for State.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Muhammad Irfan that orders passed by two Courts below are erroneous and illegal. The said orders are based on the basis of police reports and no judicial mind has been applied by the two Courts below. It is stated that the respondent No,2 Muhammad Siddiq Bilwani is an influential person and the police officers have acted malafidely in connivance with him. The police had spoiled the case of applicant and did not arrest the real culprits. It is argued that S.H.O., Civil Lines was not competent to file 1 complaint under section 182, P.P.C. as the report under section 182, P.P.C. can only be filed by the person to whom the false information has been given or by the officer to whom that officer who received false complaint was subordinate, as provided by section 195(1), Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed upon the cases Shereen v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1427, The State v.
8. Muhammad Ayub Khan 1994 PCr.LJ 698, The State v. Saleem Ahmad Malik 1994 PCr.LJ 1316, Haji Muhammad and another v. Noor Hussain Alwani and others 1993 PCr.LJ 767, Muhammad Boota Anjum v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1538 and Nazir Ahmed and 9 others v. Illaqa Magistrate First Class, Samundri, District Faisalabad and others 1997 PCr.LJ 634.
9. Mr. Abdul Waheed Kazi submitted that the original order was passed by Judicial Magistrate on police report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C., which is an administrative order and cannot be challenged through criminal revision. He further submitted that S.H.O., Civil Lines was competent to file complaint as the false complaint was recorded by Sub-Inspector Shoukat Mahmood who was subordinate to him. It is argued that applicant had filed a false case which was investigated by the police and since the applicant could not produce any evidence in support of his case, therefore, the same was very correctly disposed of in B Class. The reliance is placed upon` Haji Muhammad and another v. Noor Hussain Alwani and others 1993 PCr.LJ 767, Bahadur and another v. The State PLD 1985 SC 62 and Muhammad Sharif and 8 others v. The State 1997 SCM R 304.
10. Mr. Sardaruddin Qureshi learned counsel appearing for State has supported the orders passed by two Courts below. He stated that the action under section 182, P.P.C. has been correctly taken against: him. The charge in that case has been framed by the trial Court. He should make an application in the first instance before the trial Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
11. From the record, it appears that applicant lodged F.I.R. under sections 506-B and 109, P.P.C. wherein he had levelled allegations against two unknown young boys who pointed their pistols to him and issued threats, while he was going in his car. He did not raise any allegation against Muhammad Siddiq Bilwani except that he may be held responsible for the loss or damage caused to him as the aforesaid culprits issued threats by expressing that he had developed the dispute with aforesaid Muhammad Siddiq Bilwani. During the investigation police found the said report to be false. They recommended that the F.I.R. be disposed of in B Class and action under section 182, P.P.C. be initiated against complainant. On the basis of said report, the complaint under section 182, P.P.C. is filed. The record further reveals that trial Court has framed charge against the applicant on 14-3- 2002.
12. Second contention of learned counsel is that S.H.O. was not competent to file complaint under section 182, P.P.C. has no force as the false information was given to A.S.-I., who is subordinate to S.H.O. As such it is not derogatory to the provisions of section 195(1), Cr.P.C.
13. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for applicant is distinguishable and has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
14. In such circumstances I do not find it proper to interfere with the impugned orders passed by Courts below as the initial order was passed by the Magistrate on the police report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. administrative side and the aforesaid order could not be challenged by way of revision under sections 435/439, Cr.P.C. The order of Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which could amount to an abuse of process of Court and needed rectification of any injustice. The reference can be had to a case of Muhammad Sharif and 8 others v. The State 1997 SCM R 304 wherein their lordships have observed as under:-- "The peculiarities enumerated above establish beyond any doubt that in so concurring with a report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C., he does not function as a criminal Court. In view of this dictum, the order so passed by the Magistrate was held to be not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction under section 435 to section 439, Cr.P.C."
15. In this view of the matter, the criminal revision was not maintainable against the aforesaid order.
16. Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous No,121 of 2002 under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has no merit which stands dismissed.
17. However, the applicant is at liberty to make an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. in the trial Court, if he desires so.