On 31.3.2006, Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Sardar, had got registered an FIR No. 228 of 2006, with Police Station Yazman, under Sections 506, 148, 149 of the CPC. The contents of the FIR are reproduced in English version as under:-- "I am a permanent resident of Chak No. 116/DB and cultivator by profession. I was proceeding toward Baithik' of Hafiz Muhammad Nasir from my house at about 8:00 p.m. I found Muhammad Shabbir armed with pistol .30 bore, Gohar Javed armed with Kalashnikov, Muhammad Javed armed with Repeater .12 bore, Abdul Ghani armed with Soti, Muhammad Arshad Armed with pistol .30 bore, Muhammad Sarwar armed with dagger, Master Muhammad Irshad armed with .222 bore, Asghar Ali armed with knife, Zulfiqar Ali armed with hatchet, Abdul Rashid armed with chhura, Muhammad Shabbir armed with carbine, Muhammad Asif armed with soti, Abdul Razzaq armed with daang, Shabbaz armed with daang Muhammad Amjad armed with daang, Wazir Ahmad armed with soti Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Akhtar armed with soti, Mahboob Alam armed with dagger and some other unknown persons standing in a chowk in the middle of the village and when I came across them, Muhammad Shabbir and Gohar Javed intercepted and threatened me that today they would murder me. I besought but in vain. I started raising hue and cry, which attracted Muzammal Hussain and Munawar Hussain to the scene of occurrence. Finding opportunity, I ran away. All the accused persons while brandishing their weapons followed me. I took refuge in the Baithale of Hafiz Nazir. All the accused persons remained sitting there till 11:00 p.m. Gohar Javed and his accomplices had also made aerial firing earlier to this occurrence. I present my written application. Necessary proceedings may be initiated.
Sd/- Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Sardar, Caste Arain, resident of Chak No. 116/DB, Tehsil Yazman".
2. learned counsel submits that the above mentioned FIR needs quashment as Section 506 of the PPC, does not appear to have been committed. Referring to Section 503 of the PPC, learned counsel states that main ingredient for the commission of offence of criminal intimidation, as defined in the aforesaid section, is missing in the whole story, narrated by the informant, He has also argued that apparently the case is false one and it does not appear to be credible information that eighteen armed persons alongwith some unknown persons with premeditation were not able to cause a single injury even to the informant although they were prepared to cause the murder of the informant. It, in fact, display that the case is based on false and cooked up story to rope in innocent persons with some ulterior motive or political victimization.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 states that eighteen persons alongwith some unknown persons had assembled in a Chowk and tried to cause murder of the informant, therefore FIR cannot be quashed. An inquiry is under process with the Police and it is yet to be determined as to whether offence was committed or not?. Learned counsel refers to 2006 SCM R 276 (Col. (Rtd) Shah Sadiq vs. Muhammad Ashiq) and contends that this Court has got no jurisdiction to interfere into investigation of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the State has very candidly and fairly stated that from the contents of the FIR, offence under Section 506 of the PPC cannot be made out and it requires quashment.
5. After considering the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and from the perusal of the record, I have considered it necessary to reproduce Section 503 of the PPC:-- "503. Criminal intimidation. Whoever threat: as another with an injury to his person reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. with intent to cause alarm to that person. or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation".
From examination and analysis of above section, it appears that this section consists of three main essential ingredients:-- (i)There must be a threat; (ii)that threat must be causative of injury to a person. reputation or to his property, or to any other one in whom that person may be interested; and (iii)there must be a purpose of threat also which may be to cause alarm to that person, or to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
To prove this third ingredient, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has failed to point out the purpose for which the informant was intercepted in he Chowk by so many persons. The contents of FIR display that there was only a simple threat which cannot be considered to have caused any alarm to the informant because no such words depicting such consequences are found 1 in the FIR.
Not a single word or sentence shows that any threat was hurled or the informant was directed to do any unlawful act or to omit to do an act which the informant was entitled to do legally.
Therefore, the third condition provided for the applicability of Section 506 of the PPC is missing.
Even on the face of contents of the FIR, it appears that story is unbelievable and improbable.
Eighteen persons armed with deadly weapons alongwith some unknown person also having pre- consultation a, premeditation, having intention to cause murder of informant were present but could not cause a single injury to the informant. A prudent man even cannot believe that such an occurrence had taken place or committed by such persons. From the contents of FIR, the commission of offence has not been proved. As regards the citation quoted by the learned counsel for the informant as 2006 SCM R 276 (Col. (Retd) Shah Sadiq versus Muhammad Ashiq), it does not bar the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in proper cases to quash an FIR when the story narrated in the FIR is found incredible and impossible and on the fact of it, it appears to be a cooked up story to rope in innocent persons of adverse party merely for political victimization and ends and if from the bare reading of the FIR, no offence is made out to have been committed. In such cases FIR can be quashed to save innocent persons from being harassed and humiliated by the police. The above noted decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not created any bar to quash this FIR. Therefore, by relying upon 1988 P Cr.L.J 270 (Syed Ali Asghar Shah versus The State), the writ petition is accepted. Resultantly, FIR No. 228/2006, dated 31.3.2006, registered with Police Station Yazman, District Bahawalpur, under Sections 506, 148, 149 of the PPC, stands quashed.