' MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J.---Seeks quashment of F.I.R. No,439 of 2010 registered under Article 155(C) of The Police Order, 2002 (Herein after called Order No, 22 of 2002) at the instance of respondent No,3, the then S.H.O. Police Station Bhera.
2. Briefly the relevant facts for disposal of petition are that present petitioner was Investigating Officer of case F.I.R. No, 280 of 2010 registered under section 496-A of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Bhera. The petitioner recorded the statement of alleged abductee Ghulam Sakeena during course of investigation. The respondent No,3 on scrutiny of different files formulated opinion that present , petitioner being Investigating Officer of case F.I.R. No,280 of 2010 has not conducted investigation diligently and as such case F.I.R. No, 439 of 2010 was registered against him under Article 155(C) of The Police Order, 2002.
3. Heard.
' Learned counsel for petitioner has maintained that present petitioner being Investigating Officer did not formulate any opinion regarding innocence of accused and just recorded the statement of abductee Ghulam Sakeena, who was produced before Area Magistrate. With this background learned counsel for petitioner maintained that accusation contained in the F.I.R. Are incorrect and nothing was incorporated in order to suggest impartiality or neglect in the duty. Submitting argument on legal premises, learned counsel for petitioner while making reference to Article 155(C) of the Police Order, 2002 maintained that offence under said Article is not cognizable offence and as such no action was warranted under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In order to substantiate his contention that the offence under Article 155(C) of the Police Order, 2002 is a non-cognizable offence, learned counsel for petitioner sought help from "SHAHID HUSSAIN and another v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TAUNSA SHARIF DISTT. D.G. KHAN and others (2011 YLR 294).
' On the other hand, learned A.A.-G., while opposing the petition maintained that since there was neglect in the performance of duties on the part of petitioner, therefore, respondent No,3 rightly got a case registered against present petitioner to which no exception can be taken and petitioner being an accused can agitate all his grounds before learned trial Court.