' The learned counsel has filed this I.C.A. In Writ Petition No,6786 of 2009 and called in question order of the learned Single Bench, dated 14-4-2009.
2. Before the learned Single Bench, appellant had challenged and sought quashment of proceedings presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, T.T. Singh by way of Qalandra under section 182, P.P:C. The said Qalandra was prepared and submitted by S.H.O. Police Station Saddar, T.T. Singh. According to Qalandra or complaint under section 182, P.P.C., present appellant lay information to different public servants against the respondents involving respondents in false case. This includes information/complaint before the police officials as well as judicial officers. The motive behind this filing of false information/ complaint is dispute over a property.
3. A charge was framed in the Court of Mr. Abid Ali Chaudhry, Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, T.T. Singh on 20-10-2007 tinder section 182, P.P.C. One of the grounds taken before the learned Single Bench for quashment of proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Was that "public servant concerned as appearing in section 195, Cr.P.C. Would mean the servant to whom relevant application first moved". The learned Single Bench repelled and disagreed, with this proposition and observed that provisions of section 182, P.P.C. Would be invoked where a person gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to ,cause or knowing it to be likely that he would cause such public servant to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person. The learned Single Bench also observed that if the complaints under section 182, P.P.C. Were false, the appellant would have availed remedy under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
4. However,' before us the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Or complaint under section 182, P.P.C. Can only be filed if after registration of an F.I.R. Same is found false and cancelled. According to him, F.I.R. Was not registered on information provided by appellant to the S.H.O. And other senior Police Officer i,e, D.P.O., D.I.-G., R.P.O. And I.-G.P. According to him, since information was provided to the above senior officers, therefore, S.H.O. Had no power to prepare or submit complaint/Qalandra under section 182, P.P.C. In this regard, the learned counsel read section 182, P.P.C. Before us and pointed out words: "false information". According to him, this false information means, false F.I.R. He also referred to section 154, Cr.P.C. To point out the hearing: Information in cognizable offences". According to him, if section 154, Cr.P.C. Is read with section 182, P.P.C., it is clear that if an F.I.R. Is proved false, only then action under section 182, P.P.C. Can be taken.
5. We have considered the above contention of the learned counsel B but found it void and utterly groundless. Section 182, P.P.C. starts like this: "whoever gives to any public servant and information which he knows or believes to be false". Words "public servant" precede word "information". Words "public servant" is defined under section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code. At least 11 categories of different public servants are given under section 21, P.P.C. Which we would not like to reproduce as it would take a lot of space. Nevertheless, it is pointed out that expression "public servant" include officials of armed forces; Central Government; Provincial Government; every Judge; every Officer of Court; every jury man; every Arbitrator; a person who can keep other person in confinement; who is assigned any duty on behalf of the Government; every officer whose duty it is to receive, keep or expend any property; and every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election.
Therefore, it is very grave mistake to believe on part of learned counsel that only an S.H.O. Is a public servant. Under section 154, Cr.P.C. Information can only be laid before S.H.O.. But section 182, P.P.C. Speaks about giving information to any public servant. Section 182, P.P.C. Does not refer to an S.H.O. The law makers have deliberately used words "public servant". If the law makers intended so as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant, they would have used words "Station House Officer" instead of public servant in section 182, P.P.C. Section 22-B, Cr.P.C. Also empowers Justice of the Peace to take an appropriate action when he receives an information of the occurrence of any incident involving a breach of peace, etc. Again it may be pointed out that Justices of Peace are not Police Officers/S.H.O. Just to give another instance, we may quote section 190, Cr.P.C. Under this section Magistrate 1st Class has been empowered to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts; upon a report in writing made by any Police Officer; and upon information received from any person other than a Police Officer, etc. Again, it is evident that information does not necessarily mean an F.I.R. And likewise information can be laid before Magistrate/a public servant and not only before S.H.O. As contemplated under section 154, Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the above, it can safely be held that action under section 182, P.P.C. Can be taken if a false information is given to a public servant which does not necessarily mean information under section 154, Cr.P.C. Only. Most of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are irrelevant and inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The precedent judgments were delivered in different contexts and in different circumstances. However, we would like to discuss some of them. In PLD 2007 SC 539, para.27(B), it is held that existence of an F.I.R. Is no condition precedent for holding of an investigation nor is the same a pre-requisite for the arrest of a person concerned with the commission of a cognizable offence. In another case, where after being dissatisfied by police, a complaint was filed. The petitioner's prosecution under section 182, P.P.C. On charge of getting a false case registered was not warranted during the pendency of petitioner's complaint. It was held as under:--- "The order that emerges from the above authorities is that so long petitioner's direct complaint is pending in Court, no action could be taken against him under section 182, P.P.C. Or section 211, P.P.C.
It is only after his complaint, is disposed as false, that the Court concerned can direct filing of complaint against the petitioner under section 211, P.F'.C." (1983 PCr.LJ 1097).
Therefore, as decided in the above case even if a complaint is found false, section 182, P.P.C. Can be invoked. In PLD 2000 Lah. 84, on page 87, it was held:- "It is public servant to whom a false information is given by a person knowing it to be false, thereafter moves the machinery of law against the accused person to his department or to the injury or annoyance of the accused person."
' Again in this case words referred are "public servant" and not the Station House Officer.
7. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Intra-Court Appeal is dismissed in limine. However, dismissal of this appeal will not in any manner affect right of the appellant to avail remedies available to him under the law.