' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Petition is accused of the case got registered by complainant Mian Muhammad Pervaiz Akhtar under section 295-C, P.P.C. This petition for bail before arrest was directly entertained and the petitioner was allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order, dated 16-3-2006 on which date order for production of record was issued and the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab. Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana was asked to assist this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the support of this bailbefore arrest petition, submits that the petitioner has been found innocent during the course of investigation; that the petitioner has committed no offence rather he was assaulted upon and was caused injures by the complainant and as the petitioner has been involved in a false case, therefore, he is not only entitled to the confirmation of the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him by this Court but also a direction for registration of a criminal case against the complainant of the present case is warranted under the law.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, who was already under notice because on the last date of hearing he was directed production of record coupled with appearance before this Court for assistance, has entered appearance along with Hameedullah, Inspector along with the record. The learned Law Officer, after having gone through the record, submits that the petitioner was found innocent during the course of investigation. He further submits that no case is made out against the petitioner and he will not support the prosecution case.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. To satisfy my consciousness, I have personally made queries from the petitioner who is present in Court to which he has replied that he is a true Muslim, never claims to be the Prophet, neither belongs to Qadiani or Lahori Groups, he is a practising lawyer, he was caused injuries by the complainant and then has falsely been involved in this case. Further submits that after getting MLR qua the injuries received by him at the hands of the complainant, he had submitted application to the concerned S.H.O. But no criminal case has been registered against the complainant of the present F.I.R. Though the same was warranted under the law.
6. This case has peculiar facts and circumstances, on the one hand the complainant had caused injuries to the petitioner and on the otherhand, he also got succeeded in involving him in the criminal case in hand under section 295-C, P.P.C. Which is a strange type of case because in fact a criminal case should have been registered against the person who had caused injuries i.e, against the complainant.
7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as the petitioner has flatly refused the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. And loudly claims to be a true Muslim having full faith on the last- hood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) which factor is also duly mentioned in ground F of the instant bail petition, as the complainant has failed to produce tangible evidence before the Investigating Officer to make out a case against the petitioner, as the SP has found the petitioner innocent during the course of investigation, so, the ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner is hereby confirmed.
8. This Court is also conscious of its power conferred upon it under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Which provision of law reads as under:-- "561-A, Cr.P.C. Saving of inherent power of High Court.---Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code; or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
9. The question of exercise of powers under the above provision of law, with which this Court is still clothed, came up for consideration before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in The State v. Asif Ali Zardari and another (1994 SCM R 798), wherein, at page 801 of the judgment, while dilating upon the powers of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The Apex Court observed as under:-- "(9) Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Confers upon High Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to given effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Their powers are very wide and can be exercised by the High Court at any time. Ordinarily, High Court does not quash proceedings under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Unless Trial Court exercises its power under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. Which are incidentally of the same nature and in a way akin to and co-related with quashment of proceedings as envisaged under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In exceptional cases High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Or 265-K,Cr.P.C. Without waiting for Trial Court to pass orders under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. If the facts of the case so warrant to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
10. As the petitioner has denied the allegations levelled against him and as he has been found innocent during investigation because the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his allegation, therefore, benefit of doubt goes to the petitioner/accused. In this regard this Court is fortified with a judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 1048) wherein while acquitting accused from a case registered under section 295-C, P.P.C. At page 1056, the Apex Court held as under:-- "...It is hardly necessary to reiterate that the prosecution is obliged to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and if it fails to do so the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as of right. It is also firmly settled that if there is an element of doubt as to the guilt of the accused the benefit of that doubt must be extended to him. The doubt of course must be reasonable and no the imaginary or artificial. The rule of benefit of doubt, which is described as the golden rule, is essentially a rule of prudence which cannot be ignored while dispending justice in accordance with law. It is based on the maxim, 'it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted'. In simple words it means that utmost care should be taken by the Court in convicting an accused. It was held in The State v. Mushtaq Ahmad (PLD 1973 SC 418) that this rule is antithesis of haphazard approach or reaching a fitful decision in a case. It will not be out of place to mention here that this rule occupies a pivotal place in the Islamic Law and is enforced rigorously in view of the saying of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.) that the 'mistake of Qazi (Judge) in releasing a criminal is better than his mistake in punishment an innocent."
11. In view of the above backdrop of the case, the registration of the F.I.R. In hand against the petitioner has no legs to stand for following reasons, firstly, the SP Investigation has found the petitioner to be innocent as the complainant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to make out his case against the petitioner, secondly, the petitioner was victim of the attack and was murderously assaulted upon by the complainant which factum has himself been admitted by the complainant in the F.I.R. Butstrangely he was made accused in the impugned F.I.R. Thirdly, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana has not supported the prosecution case and has no objection to the quashment of the F.I.R. Fourthly, continuation of the present criminal proceedings pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R. Shall not only be the abuse of the process of the law but would also create law and order situation in the society and, lastly, after having sought guidance from the precedent case-law quoted above and while exercising powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the criminal case registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No,187 of 2006, dated 10- 3-2006 under section 295-C, P.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat, and the initiation of the criminal proceedings pursuant to the registration of the said F.I.R. Are hereby quashed with a further direction that a criminal case shall be registered against the complainant of the present F.I.R.
Under section 324, P.P.C. Read with other section of the Pakistan Penal Code by the S.H.O.
Concerned on the pending application of the petitioner and a copy of the said F.I.R. Shall be placed before this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) for information.