' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- Succinctly the facts of the case are that F.I.R. No,33, registered at Police Station Chhanga Manga, on 22-1-2007, for offence under section 295-C P.P.C, on the application submitted by Muhammad Rafiq against Martha Bibipetitioner. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has sought quashment of the said F I. R.
2. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to section 196 Cr.P.C. The trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the ease; that case cannot be got registered by a private person except any Federal or Provincial Officer; that section 295-A P.P.C.
Was inserted in the Statute through Chapter XV in 1927, while section 295-B P.P.C. Was brought on record in 1982 and section 295-C P.P.C. Was introduced in 1986; that all the three sections i.e, 295-A, A 295-B and 295-C P.P.C. Are in continuity with each other and should be read with each other. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon on the cases of Qari Muhammad Younas v. The State (2001 YLR 484) and Ijaz Ahmad v. Muhammad Azam (2003 PCr.LJ 1458). Further submits that in view of the above cited judgments proceedings before the leaned trial Court on the basis of impugned F.I.R. May be quashed.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional A.-G. Assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that as far as the above cited judgment 2001 YLR 484 is concerned that was passed in an appeal case and all the evidence was discussed along with section 196 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter the accused/appellant Qari Muhammad Younas was acquitted. The Court disbelieved the evidence on merit and the mentioning of section 295-C P.P.C. Therein was by way of a passing reference due to inadvertence: Further submits that so far as the other judgment 2003 PCr.LJ 1458 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that was a case of section 295-A P.P.C. And technically learned trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the said case, so the F.I.R. Was quashed therein. Adds that difference between the case of present petitioner and that of Qari Muhammad Younas is that said case was an appeal while in the present the petitioner has sought quashment prior to recording of any evidence; that particularly in section 196 Cr.P.C. Section 295-C P.P.C. Does not figure at all; and that as far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that all the three sections i.e, 295-A, 295-B and 295-C P.P.C. Should be read in continuity, it will tantamount to add section 295-C P.P.C. In section 196 Cr.P.C. Which amounts to challenge the fairness and wisdom of the Legislature. The Courts are entitled to interpret the law and not to make the law. Reliance in this respect is placed on Mehr Zulfiqar Ali Babu and others v. Government of the Punjab and others (PLD 1997 SC 10 and Ghulam Farid alias Farida v. The State (PLD 2006 SC 53).
Thus, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the entire record of the case. For the just decision of this case I would like to reproduce section 196 Cr.P.C. Below:--- "196. Prosecution for offences against the State.---No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter VI or IX-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (Except section 127) or punishable under section 108-A, or section 153-A or section 294-A or section 295-A or section 505 of the same Code, unless upon complaint made by order of or under authority from, the Central Government or the Provincial Government concerned, or some officer empowered in this behalf be either of the two Governments."
' From the bare perusal of the above said section it reveals that section 295-C P.P.C. Does not figure therein. There is only mention of two Chapters of P.P.C. Along with some sections of P.P.C. And it is also mentioned therein that no Court shall take cognizance and case could not be registered without prior permission of the officers mentioned therein. This embargo is only relevant about the penal provisions mentioned in section 196 Cr.P.C. But section 295-C P.P.C. Is not present therein.
5. As far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, first judgment cited as (2001 YLR 484) was passed in an appeal case, wherein after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on record I had accepted the appeal. I admit that I have also taken one of the grounds relating to section 295-C P.P.C. In fact I was not properly assisted and the same was overlooked by this Court, so, for the just decision of the case I would like to reproduce hereunder the concluded, paragraph of the said judgment cited as (2001 YLR 484):- "A bare perusal of section 196 Cr.P.C. Would show that the learned trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the instant case without complaint made by order of or under authority from, the Central Government or the Provincial Government concerned, or some officer empowered in this behalf by either of the two Governments. After scanning the record no such permission or authority has been given to any official of the Central or Provincial Government so the learned trial Court was not competent to take cognizance and to try the case. It is also evident from the record that the intention of the appellant could not be proved if one goes through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court, particularly evidence of P.W.4. Learned trial Court also did not agree with the inquiry conducted by P. W.5 because the same was conducted on the back of the appellant.
Appellant has also denied the allegation levelled against him. Both the sects mentioned above were also proceeded under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. Both the sects i.e . Complainant party and the appellant party belong to two rival religious groups and deep-rooted enmity exists between them.
Evidence produced by the prosecution based on hearsay evidence. No person from the members of meeting in which these words were uttered by the appellant, has been produced. Possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. In this view of the matter this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case."
' As far as the second judgment i.e, 2003 PCr.LJ 1458 is concerned, that case was of section 295-A P.P.C. And not section 295-C P.P.C. The concluding para of the judgment clinches the issue. So this judgment is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that section 295-C P.P.C. Should be read in continuity with sections 295-A and 295-B P.P.C. Is concerned, in fact three different offences c have been mentioned in these three sections by the Legislature. The wisdom of the Legislature in this regard cannot be challenged, if the same is challenged it will tantamount to challenge the wisdom of Legislature. The Courts are to interpret the law and not to make deletions and additions in the same. To read section 295-C P.P.C. As part of section 196 Cr.P.C. Will amount to interference in the sprit of Legislation. The judgments of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate-General are quite relevant on this proposition.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through record and above cited judgments relied upon by learned .Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no case for quashment is made out. In this view of the matter, this petitioner stands dismissed.