1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.----This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous. Application No,38 of 2008, filed by Mst. Salma wife of Muhammad Atta-ur-Rehman against the State.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that on 9-11-2007, applicant/complainant appeared at P.S. Gulistan-e- Johar, Karachi where she lodged F.I.R. Stating therein that her husband is serving at Islamabad and she is also serving lady. That as the husband of the applicant complainant is residing at Islamabad, therefore, she often came to her sister's house and stay there. That on that day, when she was present in the house of her sister somebody came and knocked on the outer door of the house. On this, she came there and saw Waseem-ur-Rehman and his brother Nadeem-ur- Rehman. Waseem-ur-Rehman pulled out pistol from his Shalwar and asked her not to raise any hue and cry. She further stated that her daughter was married with Waseem-urRehman but subsequently she got separation from the said Waseem-ur-Rehman by way of Khulla through Court. That the act of Waseem-ur-Rehman i.e, threatening her at the pistol point amounts to an offence, therefore, she requested for taking action against Waseem-ur-Rehman and his brother Nadeem-ur-Rehman. It is further alleged that after registration of the case, police conducted investigation in the matter and found that no such incident as is alleged in the F.I.R. Took place and furthermore that accused Nadeem-ur-Rehman was out of country at the time of alleged incident, therefore, police recommended for disposal of the case 'as a false one under class 'W. The report was submitted before the Area Magistrate who not only allowed the disposal of the case but also ordered that proceeding against applicant/ complainant be initiated under section 182, P.P.C. Vide his order dated 16-1-2008.
3. ' Feeling aggrieved with the order of the learned Magistrate, the applicant/ complainant has filed this application for quashment/setting aside the order of the Magistrate dated 16-1-2008.
4. ' Heard Advocate for complainant/ applicant and learned State Counsel as well as perused case papers.
5. ' The learned counsel for applicant/ complainant submitted that the order of the Magistrate for registering case under section 182, P.P.C. Against the complainant/applicant is illegal, without jurisdiction and not sustainable. In support of his contention, he further submitted that under section 195, Cr.P.C. The complaint regarding offences from sections 172 to 188, P.P.C, can be made only by the public servant to whom the false report was given or by the officer to whom the said public officer is subordinate. That neither the S.H.O. Had submitted any report before the Magistrate for initiating proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against the complainant nor the S.H.O. For the purpose of registration of the case under section 182, P.P.C. Was subordinate to the Magistrate who directed him to initiate proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is in clear violation of the provisions of section, 195, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the same is not sustainable. He further submitted that even when petition was made before the Honourable High Court of Sindh at Karachi for directing the. Concerned police to initiate a proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against the persons who made complaint, the petition was disposed of on the ground that no such direction could therefore, be issued to the police by High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction to register the F.I.R. He referred to 2002 M LD 459 (Mst. Rani Begum v. Murad Bibi). He also in support of his contention, that only the public servant to whom the complaint was made was competent to lodge such case, referred to 2002, PCr.LJ 366 (Qutab Din v.
6. The State and another); 2005 PCr.LJ 623 (Maulana Muhammad Ilyas Qadri v. Superintendent of Police, Haripur District and 3 others), 2005 YLR 1785 (Muhammad Juman v. The State) and 2002 M LD 462 (Sajid Tufail alias Abuzar and another v. The State). He, therefore, submitted that the application may be allowed as prayed.
7. ' Learned State Counsel has opposed this application but he could not rebut the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant/ applicant by producing any law or decided case on this point. He lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous. Application may be rejected.
8. ' I have considered the contentions raised at bar and have gone through the material available on the record.
9. ' The perusal of the case papers shows that the concerned police officer/ S.H.O. Of Police Station, Gulistan-e-Johar who submitted challan in the Court before the learned Magistrate had neither sought permission nor himself stated that he has initiated proceedings under section 182, P.P.C, against applicant/complainant, on the contrary it was learned Magistrate who directed him to initiate proceedings under section 182 P.P.C.
10. ' In view of the law discussed above and the principle laid down in the decided cases, I am of the clear opinion that it was only the public servant to whom the false complaint was made to have initiated proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against complainant/applicant. The learned Magistrate has no such 'authority to direct the police to initiate proceedings against the complainant/applicant under section 182, P.P.C. As the order passed by the learned Magistrate is in violation of the provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order dated 16-1-2008, passed by learned Ilird Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East, directing for initiation of criminal proceedings is illegal and not sustainable under the law. Therefore, I hereby allow this application and quash the above-noted order of the learned Judicial Magistrate.
11. ' Criminal Miscellaneous. Application stands disposed of.