' MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.---Through the instant petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C., the petitioners have made a prayer for quashment of F.I.R No,620, dated 21-11-2013, registered against them under sections 188/148/149 P.P.C., in Police Station Naurang.
2. Brief but relevant facts of the case are that complainant Ashraf Khan filed an application before Additional Assistant Commissioner-II/ Assistant Collector, Naurang, for lodging of F.I.R. Against the petitioners to the effect that in a partition suit titled "Mussrat Bibi and others v. Muhammad Munir Khan and others", petitioners were restrained for raising any construction in the suit land, vide order dated 12-7-2013. Copy of the same was also sent to the S.H.O. Police Station Naurang vide diary No,148 dated 17-7-2013, but the petitioners were constructing shops over the suit land and thereby violating the orders, hence were liable to be punished in accordance with law. The said application was forwarded by the Additional Assistant Commissioner, Tehsil Naurang, Lakki Marwat to the SHO Police Station concerned for registration of F.I.R. The local police showing Ashraf Khan as complainant lodged the above mentioned F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the complainant was not competent to lodge the F.I.R. Against the respondents, because he was not a public servant as enunciated under section 195 Cr.P.C.; that it was requirement of the law that a criminal case should have been registered by mentioning the said Additional Assistant Commissioner Naurang, Lakki Marwat as complainant, but it is not the case. Learned counsel for petitioner referred the following precedents in support of his arguments 2000 SCM R 1904; 2007 PCr.LJ 613; 2012 YLR 1097 and 2014 PCr.LJ 99.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State assisted by learned counsel for the respondents vehemently rebutted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that the alleged F.I.R. Has been registered on the direction of Assistant Additional Commissioner, Naurang, Lakki Marwat in accordance with law. They further contended that submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners relate to the merits of the case, which can at best be adjudged during trial.
5. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties, Addl: A.G for the State and gone through the record as well as law on the subject.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant, Muhammad Ashraf had filed a complaint before the Additional Assistant Commissioner, Naurang, Lakki Marwat, for taking action against the respondents with regard to violation of the restraining order, which was sent to the SHO, Police Station Naurang, with the direction to register F.I.R, instead of making written complaint by himself as complainant. The complainant, Muhammad Ashraf of the said F.I.R is not a public servant but a private individual, thus he is not competent to make himself as the complaint of the F.I.R. The Assistant Additional Commissioner, Naurang, Lakki Marwat was under legal obligation to file complaint himself to the S.H.O. Police Station Naurang being a public servant, to register F.I.R.
Against the petitioners in compliance of section 195, Cr.P.C., which is mandatory in nature. The provision of section 188, P.P.C. Can only be invoked when provision of section 195, Cr.P.C. Is complied with. I deem it appropriate to reproduce the provision of section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance:
(a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.
' Bare reading of above provision of law provides that the courts cannot take cognizance in an offence under section 188 P.P.C. Except on complaint in writing of public servant or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. While in the instant case, the complainant Ashraf Khan is neither public servant nor subordinate to public servant, rather is an individual, litigant of a civil suit between the parties, as such he was not competent to have lodged the present F.I.R., in view of express bar contained in section 195, Cr.P.C.
7. Wisdom behind the enactment of this provision of law by the legislatures was that the litigants in civil proceedings may be prevented from multifarious litigations by lodging criminal complaints against the orders not complied with or documents in dispute. If the bar of provision of section 195, Cr.P.C. Is removed, I am afraid, in every civil case, each party would file criminal proceedings against such like violation of orders of the Court or document in dispute. For this view I am fortified by the dictum laid down in Abdul Wahab v. Muhammad Nawaz and 7 others (2000 SCM R 1904), Abdul Baqi and 23 others v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 87), Syed Abdul Rehman Shah and 25 others v.
Station House Officer, Police Station City, Mansehra and another (1996 PCr.LJ 483) and Ikram and 6 others v. SDM Tamergara, District Dir and another (2000 PCr.LJ 297).
8. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is accepted, resultantly, F.I.R. No,620 dated 21-11- 2013 under sections 188/148/149 P.P.C., of Police Station Naurang, Lakki Marwat is hereby quashed.
F.I.R Quashed.