' Arguments of the parties have been heard.
2. Syed lqbal Hussain, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for setting aside of the order, dated 11-9-2003 recorded by Ch. Muhammad Hussain Maiken, learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, whereby he has dismissed his application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For the registration of case and directed initiation of proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against him.
3. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner had moved the aforementioned application to the learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad for registration of case against Ghulam Rasool and others mentioned therein for having committed the Qatl-eAmd of his uncle Syed Ghulam Abbas Shah.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad on the same called for report from the respondent No,2/S.H.O. Police Station City Hafizabad. The police submitted the detailed report as was directed.
5. On the same, the learned Sessions Judge observed that application filed by him was frivolous and baseless. He with the same dismissed it and directed that the proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Be initiated against him for giving false information.
6. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the impugned order to the extent of direction for initiation of the proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against him has brought the instant Constitutional petition.
7. It has been contended on his behalf that the impugned order is illegal to the above extent. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Murad v. The State NLR 1984 Cr.LJ 265 (Sukkur) and Naim Akhtar Soofi v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 336 (Karachi).
8. The learned A.A.-G. On behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 has conceded to the above contention.
9. However, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 to 6 has submitted only this much that the application filed by the petitioner for registration of case before the learned Sessions Judge was found false and so he has rightly ordered to initiate proceedings against him under section 182, P.P.C.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
11. As is obvious from the above position that the petitioner has shown grievance against the impugned order only in respect of direction for initiation of proceedings under section 182, P.P.C.
Against him and not regarding the rest of the prayer contained in the prayer clause in the petition.
12. The allegation contained in the petitioner's application, according to the police report was false and frivolous.
13. The learned Sessions Judge on the same taking that he has given false information to a public servant has directed for initiation of proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against him.
14. The learned A.A.-G. Has conceded that the learned Sessions Judge could not order for initiation of such proceedings against him.
15. This is in fact so. According to the case of Muhammad Murad v. The State NLR 1984 Cr.LJ 265 (Sukkur) that for taking action under section 182, P.P.C. a show-cause notice is to be given to the person against whom proposed action is to be taken and the proceedings initiated without such notice would be illegal. It has not been denied by respondent's side that the petitioner was not issued formal show-cause notice in the matter before directing such proceedings against him. So, on that account alone the impugned order is illegal.
16. However, it may also be referred here with advantage that according to the case of Nasim Akhtar Soofi v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 336 (Karachi) that in order to initiate action under section 182, P.P.C., it is essential that the false complaint involving cognizable offence should properly be registered, investigated and found to be false and baseless.
17. There is no denying the fact that neither any case was registered nor investigated. So, proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Could not be initiated against him.
18. In this regard the case of Haji Muhammad Aslam v. Inspector-General and others PLD 2001 Lah.
84 can also be referred to with advantage. In the same it has been held that prerogative to proceed under section 182, P.P.C. Lies only with the Police Officer, who has moved the machinery of law against the accused nominated in the F.I.R. By the complainant and no other Authority can direct the concerned Police Officer to proceed against the first informant, who has given the false information.
19. It thus, can be said that the learned Sessions Judge was not competent to direct initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C.
20. The impugned order to that extent, thus is not liable to be sustained being illegal. This petition, therefore, is partly accepted and the impugned order to that extent is set aside. It is dismissed as regards the remaining prayer in the prayer clause in the same.