' QAISER RASHID KHAN J.---Through this petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioners, namely, Muhammad Hand, Saifullah, Muhammad Rustam, Ziaullah and Zaffar, seek the quashment of case F.I.R. No,62 dated 17-2-2011 registered under sections 458/380/ 506/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station, Paharpur District D.I. Khan and orders passed by respondents Nos.7 and 8 at different intervals under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Being arbitrary, illegal and against the facts of the case.
2. Precise facts of the instant case are that respondent No,9 filed an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Justice of Peace for registration of case against the petitioners and on 31-1-2011 the same was accepted and the F.I.R. Ibid was chalked out. The local police after investigation recommended the case for cancellation. Besides this, proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Were also proposed against respondent No,
10. Thereafter respondent' No, 10, filed another application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Which was accepted on 11-4-2011 with the directions to the local police to arrest the accused/petitioners, and make sure the recovery of stolen animals. It was further' directed that the investigation of this case be withdrawn from Investigating Officer Umar Daraz Khan and be entrusted to some other competent police officer and thus Muhammad Baran Khan was deputed to carry out the investigation of the case. After investigation by the said police officer, the case was again recommended for cancellation. The respondent aggrieved from the conduct of the police officials again applied to the Justice of Peace with the previous prayer and on 19-9-2011 the respondent No,7 held that neither the accused were arrested nor any efforts for the recovery of stolen animals have been made. It was further held that the investigation had not been conducted on the right direction, so D.I.-G., D.I. Khan Division, was directed to conduct the investigation. The respondent No,10 submitted another application to A.I.-G. Police Investigation for the same relief and the learned Justice of Peace followed the previous orders/directions while receiving the complaint through Member Inspection Team, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar. The learned Justice of Peace on 3-12-2011 once again issued directions to the local police for compliance of previous court orders and the petition was further entrusted to the learned Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan being. Chairman Criminal Justice Co-ordination Committee for faking legal action against the responsible police officials. The learned Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan also issued several directions to the local police for compliance of court orders in, his order dated 13-12-2011. It was further held in the impugned order that in case of non-compliance, legal action would be taken against the officials, hence the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.7 to 9 are patently illegal, arbitrary, against the facts and thus liable to be quashed. He argued that a thorough probe was made by the local police into the matter and ultimately came to the conclusion that no offence was committed by the petitioners and that the allegations of the complainant were baseless and frivolous. He argued that even from the contents of the application under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Moved by the complainant, no offence was made out and thus the registration of the F.I.R. Ibid and the orders of respondents Nos.7 to 9 are not sustainable under the law. He, therefore, argued that both the F.I.R. In question and the impugned orders being totally based on wrong footings are liable to be declared null and void.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State assisted by the learned counsel for respondent No,10 resisted the petition on the grounds, inter alia, that a cognizable offence has been committed by the petitioners and thus the F.I.R. In question and the impugned orders of respondents Nos.8 and 9 were based on correct legal footings and needed no interference by this court.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that the impugned orders of respondents No,8 and 9 coupled with the registration of case F.I.R. In question are the result of proper appraisal of evidence brought on record and need no interference. Initially the police was reluctant to register the case against the accused/petitioners, but subsequently on the application of the complainant under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. And on the directions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.I. Khan in his capacity as a Justice of Peace, the present case was registered against the accused/petitioners. Though subsequently the police had recommended the cancellation of the case, but the opinion of the police is not binding upon the court. At this point, this court views with serious concern the conduct of the police officials where they have been found to be openly flouting the various orders of the learned courts. Such acts of wilful disobedience .Would never be permitted especially when it comes to the orders of the courts of law. The learned Justices of Peace should in such cases send the cases of delinquent officials to the high-ups for taking stern disciplinary action against them.
From the available facts and circumstances of the case, the accused/petitioners are, prima facie, linked with the commission of the offence and, therefore, they are liable to face the trial. Reference made to the case of Abdul Qadoos and another v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others (2009 PCr.LJ 1106 (Peshawar).
8. It is the job of the learned trial Court to adjudge the guilt or otherwise of the accused/petitioners after recording pro and contra evidence and considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. This court in its inherent powers is not supposed to exercise the same in the circumstances when from they available facts and circumstances the case, a cognizable offence has allegedly been committed by the accused/petitioners.
9. For the reasons discussed above, I find no substance in this petition which is hereby dismissed.