1. ' TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, J.--- Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Applications, for setting aside of order dated 27-7-2009 whereby the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-I Mithi and for quashment of D.C.
2. No, 80 of 2009 filed by respondent No,1 against applicant.
3. ' The facts of the case are that news was published in Daily Kawish with regard to teasing and disrespecting of applicant by the police of Nagarparkar. On such news the Chief Justice of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, taking suo motu action registered Human Rights Case No,42 of 2009 and called report from DPO Tharparkar at Mithi. The DPO submitted his report and the honourable Supreme Court passed order dated 11-2-2009 which is reproduced as under:--- "According to the report submitted by DPO Tharparkar at Mithi, it is stated that two cases were registered and the publication in the newspaper is not correct. Initially some police officials were arrested but later on they were exonerated by the DPO Tharparkar.
4. ' We are not satisfied with the report. As such District and Sessions Judge Tharparkar is directed to conduct a judicial inquiry and submit report within 15 days. Adjourned to 25-2-2009. Arjan Menghwar be also produced on the next date of hearing."
5. ' That subsequently District and Sessions Judge, Tharparkar conducted judicial inquiry and submitted his report before Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. After perusing the report the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order dated 4-6-2009 which is reproduced as under:- "Learned District and Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi had cone reted investigation in respect of incident and vide comprehensive report dated 14-3-2009 has concluded that complainant has failed to prove the allegations.
6. ' In view of the report of the District and Sessions Judge, we have no reason to disbelieve the same, therefore, suo motu case is discharged with the observations that learned District and Sessions Judge may initiate action against the complainant for unnecessarily lodging complaint without any basis, which has consumed the precious time of this Court as well as the authorities including District and Sessions Judge who had conducted investigation. Such persons are required to be dealt with strictly so may serve deterrence for the like minded persons."
7. ' On receipt of above order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the District and Sessions Judge Tharparkar issued notice to complainant Arjan and after hearing him, passed the order which is reproduced as under:--- "Heard the applicant/complainant, who is not able to satisfy the Court, therefore, Office Superintendent of this Court is directed to register a complaint against the complainant Arjan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Mithi".
8. ' On the order of District and Sessions Judge, the respondent No,2 being Office Superintendent filed Direct Complaint bearing No,80 of 2009 under sections 181 and 182, P.P.C. In the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-1, Mithi and the learned Magistrate after perusing the same admitted the same and issued B. Ws. Against the accused, hence this criminal miscellaneous application.
9. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended the learned Magistrate while admitting the direct complainant has ignored the fact that nowhere in orders of honourable Supreme Court it is stated that the applicant has given false statement or his statement has been declared as false by the learned District and Sessions Judge. He further contended that the report of Judicial Inquiry was not filed with the Direct Complaint from which it could be clarified that whether the applicant had intentionally and knowingly made false statement before the judicial inquiry. That the suo motu notice was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the newspaper reports were not published on the instigation or on the request of the applicant. That the news must have been published after collection of detailed information by the correspondent and further such kind of complaint can be said to be not proved but not false so to attract the penal provisions of section 182, P.P.C. That section 182, P.P.C. Would only apply when a person gives to any public servant any information which he knows or belief to be false and in the present case there is no mala fide on the part of the applicant to manage a false news report with intention to involve the public servant to use his lawful power to injure any other person. That according to the report of the Sessions Judge it is clearly mentioned that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations. That before initiating proceedings for offence under section 182 no show-cause notice has been issued to the applicant. Learned counsel lastly prayed for setting aside the order of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Mithi and further quashing of proceedings arising out of above direct complaint. In support of his contentions learned counsel has relied upon the case of Rana Riaz Ahmed Khan 2008 MLD 746 (Lahore), Haji Muhammad Aslam v. Inspector General and others PLD 2001 Lah. 84, The State v. Muhammad Ayub Khan 1994 PCr.LJ 698 and Muhammad Anwar v. The State 2000 YLR 2595).
10. ' Learned D.P.-G. Vehemently opposed the application. The learned D.P.-G. Has argued that there is no mandatory provision under the law to issue show-cause notice prior to the commencement of proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. The applicant is involved in Crime No,3 of 2009 in Police Station Nangarparkar. Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not maintainable as the proper remedy was to file application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
11. ' In the case of Muhammad Anwar (supra) it has been observed as under:--- ' S.
182. Initiation of prosecution for offence under section 182. Person intended to be prosecuted is entitled to show-cause notice before initiation of prosecution. Prosecution initiated without serving such show-cause notice would be nullity in eye of law.
12. ' S.182. Prosecution of a person for offence under section 182 would not be warranted when no finding was recorded by competent authority that complaint made by such person was false. Held: failure to prove an allegation, which might be true, is a different thing and should not give rise to for offence under section 182 which requires mens rea as well.
13. ' In the case of Rana Riaz Ahmed Khan v. The State (supra) it has been observed as under:--- ' No show-cause notice was issued requiring the petitioner to explain his position as to why proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Be not taken against him.
14. ' In case of State v. Muhammad Ayub Khan (supra) it has been observed as under:--- ' Section 182. False Information lodged with the bona fide belief and knowingly of its being true cannot to termed as false if the same is not proved in accordance with the legal or procedural standard of proof---such a complaint or information can be said to be not proved, but not false so to attract the penal provisions of section 182, P.P.C.
15. ' In the case of Razia Bibi (supra) it has been observed as under:--- ' Investigating Officer also did not come to conclusion that information given to him by the petitioner was false---No evidence, to demonstrate that complaint was false, was available--- prosecution had failed to prove that necessary ingredients of section 182, P.P.C. Were attracted to facts and circumstances of the case and police, therefore could not be permitted to reach sudden and frivolous conclusion that petitioner had committed an offence under section 182, P.P.C. By giving false information to them.
16. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel, DPG and after examining the record of the case and perusal of the case-laws, I am of the view that the applicant has not made any false statement within the meaning of section 181 of P.P.C. That the suo motu notice taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was based on the newspaper reports only, which were not published on the request or direction of the applicant. That section 182, P.P.C. Would only apply when a person gives to any public servant any information which he knows or belief to be false and in the present case there is no mala fide on the part of the applicant to manage a false news report with intention to involve the public servant to use his lawful power to injure any other person. In the report of the District and Sessions Judge it is clearly mentioned that the applicant has failed to prove the allegations and it has not been mentioned that the applicant had made a false complaint/statement. No finding has been made by any forum that the applicant has made a false statement in terms of section 181, P.P.0 and hence would not warrant to prosecution under section 182, P.P.C. It has also not been alleged in the said report of the District and Sessions Judge that the applicant has made a false statement before him at the time of conducting of enquiry.
17. That before initiating proceedings for offence under section 182 no show-cause notice has been issued to the applicant which according to various precedents cited by the learned counsel would be deemed to be nullity in the eyes of law.
18. In view of what has been discussed above, it is my view that this is a fit case, being extraordinary in nature, to secure the ends of justice and for ensuring process of law not to be misused, for invoking the inherent powers of this Court, as provided under section 361-A, Cr.P.C. For setting aside the order dated 27-7-2009 and quashment of proceedings commenced against the applicant by the Office Superintendent District A and Sessions. Court being Criminal Case No,80 of 2009 against the applicant in the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-I, Mithi. Accordingly this criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the order dated 27-7-2009 is set aside and all proceedings from the said order, including Criminal Case No,80 of 2009 against the applicant in the Court of Civil Judge and judicial Magistrate-I, Mithi are quashed.