' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---The petitioners, namely, Nisar Ahmad Siddiqui, Intizar Ahmad and Israr Ahmad, by filing this constitutional petition, have sought quashing of F.I.R. No.85, dated 6-4-2005, registered at Police Station, City Mianwali for offences under sections 294-A, 294-B, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C.
Read with section 5 of the Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance No.VII of 1978 at the instance of Malik Ghulam Muhammad, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station, City Mianwali, by declaring the same as illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority.
2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R. Was that on 6-4-2005 about 7-00 p.m., Malik Ghulam Muhammad, Inspector/S.H.O., the complainant, on receipt of secret information that Muhammad Yahya is running a gambling den at Awami Chowk and an illegal business of Parchi Jua is being run by him and his sons, namely, Intizar Ahmad and Israr Ahmad at a large scale through T.V. Network, a raiding party comprising of the complainant himself, Fateh Muhammad, S.- I., Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Nawaz, Asim Shaheen A.S.-Is., Amir Muhammad, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Khan, Hafeezullah, Muhammad Sultan, Constables and Abida Parveen, Lady Constable, raided the premises, where Intizar Ahmad and Israr Ahmad sons of Nisar Ahmad were found present, who on catching sight of the police party made good their escape from the backdoor of the shop; one Abdul Jabbar Siddiqui was called, in whose presence different articles, like T.V. Sets, Disk Receiver, Computer, Fax Machines etc., which find mention in the F.I.R., were taken into possession through a recovery memo. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the very entry in the premises of the petitioners by the police is violative of section 8 of Ordinance No.VII of 1978 and that the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted inquiry into this incident relating to the instant case clearly demonstrates that the case is absolute fake and that in fact no incident had taken place.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officer and have also gone through the record. I had called upon the District Police Officer, Mianwali to appear and apprise the Court of the present position of the case in hand. He appeared and submitted that he got an _inquiry conducted into the matter through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted a detailed inquiry and reported as under:-- "Ghulam Muhammad I/S.H.O., Police Station, City along with police personnel knocked at the door of the petitioner but due to non-availability of any male member, ladies did not open the door, upon which Inspector Ghulam Muhammad sent a few constables to climb on the roof adjacent to shop of the petitioner. They entered into compound of the house of the petitioner through stairs and opened the main gate from inside. The said S.H.O. Along with police force entered into house of the petitioner and TV, Fax Machine, Prize Bonds and Computer etc. Used in the gambling and prize bonds etc. Were taken into possession vide recovery memo. In the presence of Jabbar Abid Siddiqui witness but he failed to get affixed his signature on the recovery memo. Which is essential requirement under section 103, Cr.P.C."
' The Inquiry Officer further added that Ghulatn Muhammad I/S.H.O., Police Station, City entered into house of the petitioner without providing opportunity of observing "Parda" to ladies and in this way disgraced the womenfolk of the petitioner. Moreover, as per requirement of section 103, Cr.P.C. He did not get the signatures of independent witnesses/neighbourers on the recovery memo. Of the articles taken into possession by the police.
5. After this report, the District Police Officer recommended action against the S.H.O. To the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, whereupon a show-cause notice had been issued to the Inspector/S.H.O.
6. This writ- petition came up for hearing in this Court on 15-4-2005 and despite knowledge of the same the S.H.O. Submitted the challan in the Court on 14-5-2005, which clearly shows that the whole action was taken hurriedly with a view to thwarting and sabotaging the proceedings in this Court. It is also on record that thereafter the Deputy Inspector-General of Police ordered yet another inquiry into the matter on the plea that the Inspector/S.H.O. Had controverted the A findings of the first Investigating Officer and according to the police the latter Inquiry Officer held that the incident was genuine and proceeded to exonerate- the Inspector/S.H.O. The whole incident is shrouded in mystery and the possibility that the fresh inquiry had been conducted and a favourable report procured therein only with a view to protecting and shielding the police official cannot be ruled out. Any proceedings on the basis of the instant F.I.R., which had been held to be fake and forged ipitially by the police themselves, cannot be allowed to proceed. Allowing such ai F.I.R. To hold the field will amount to a blatant abuse of the process of law, which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.
7. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed, registration of the impugned F.I.R. No. 85, dated 6-4-2005, registered at Police Station, City Mianwali for offences under sections 294-A, 294-B, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance No.VII of 1978 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, therefore, the same is hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs.
8. Before parting with this judgment, I would like to observe that this order is not intended to extend a blanket cover to the petitioners to indulge in any illegal activity and as such they are not expected to get any encouragement from the acceptance of this petition. If there are any criminal cases pending against them, the same shall proceed on merit and this order will not have any reflection on the said cases.
F.I.R. Quashed.