' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- Report has been submitted by S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Bhakkar. According to said report on 17-9-2005 Muhammad Iqbal moved an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. To the learned Sessions Judge Bhakkar against Hafeez-ur-Rehman S.- I./respondent present in Court/Incharge Police Post Behal to recover Khalil Ahmad present petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge deputed a bailiff to recover Khalil Ahmad who was recovered.
No case was registered against Khalil Ahmad and his arrest was not shown in daily diary. Khalil Ahmad detenu was produced before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar on 19-9-2005. The contention of Hafeez-urRehman before the learned Sessions Judge was that an unlicenced .222 bore rifle was recovered from Khalil Ahmad and he prepared the complaint under section 13 of Arms Ordinance No,XX(20) of 1965 against him but in the meanwhile bailiff of learned Sessions Judge arrived and necessary legal action could not be taken. Learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar vide order, dated 20-9-2005 directed the D.P.O. Bhakkar to register a criminal case against Hafeez- ur-Rehman, S.-I. And other officials in accordance with law and entrusted the investigation of the case to a Police Officer not below the rank of S.D.P.O. Consequently, a case F.I.R. No,299 dated 19-9- 2005 under section 342, P.P.C. Read with section 156, Police Order, 2002 was registered with Police Station Saddar Bhakkar. D.S.P. Saddar Bhakkar joined both the parties in the investigation. He found Hafeez-ur-Rehman S.-I. And other police officials guilty of the offence. They were arrested and sent to judicial lock-up and now they are on bail. Challan was prepared which is pending before the learned trial Court. On the other hand D.S.P. Saddar Bhakkar held that rifle .222 bore was recovered from Khalil Ahmad who is petitioner in this case but the police could not initiate the proceeding against him till 17-9-2005. A case under section 13 of Arms Ordinance No,XX(20) of 1965 was registered vide F.I.R. No,309, dated 26-9-2005. Investigating Officer arrested Khalil Ahmad and he was sent to judicial lock-up and the challan was sent to the learned trial Court. According to report both the cases are pending in the Court of Mr. Saeed Khurshid Magistrate Section 30 Bhakkar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case against the petitioner is counterblast to the case registered against Hafeez-ur-Rehman S.-I. And other police officials; that Hafeez-ur-Rehman S.-I. Even did not show any complaint allegedly prepared by him to the bailiff of learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar; that his arrest was also not shown in the daily diary.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that D.S.P./ Investigating Officer was very fair in the investigation; that he has challaned the police officials and the petitioner in this case.
According to him the petitioner if so advised may move to the learned trial Court for redressal of his grievance.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In compliance of order dated 31-10-2005, report has been submitted by S.H.O. Concerned. From the facts and circumstances of the case and report submitted by S.H.O. Concerned, it is crystal clear that when. Bailiff recovered Khalil Ahmad from police post neither his arrest was shown in the daily diary nor any complaint was shown to the bailiff to the effect that rifle .222 bore has been recovered from him and even no rifle was shown to the `bailiff. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that case against the petitioner is a counterblast seems to be genuine one. I am in full agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention of learned Additional Advocate-General is that challan has been submitted against Khalil Ahmad petitioner and he should be tried in accordance with law. I am not in agreement with the submission made by learned Additional Advocate- General, when on the face of it, it is found that case against the petitioner is a counterblast, why the petitioner should face the agony of trial before the learned trial Court as it will amount to abuse of process of law. In this view of the matter and peculiar circumstances of this case, this petition is accepted and the case registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No,309, dated 26-9-2005 under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance No,XX(20) of 1965 is hereby quashed. With the above observation this petition stands disposed of.