ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR No. 51/2020, dated 09.03.2020 registered with Police Station Zarghoonabad Quetta under sections 325, Q&D, 182, 420 and 500, P.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the submissions made herein-above, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 51/2020 lodged on 09.03.2020 in offence under section 325, Q&D, 182, 420, 500, P.P.C. with Police Station Zarghoon Abad, Quetta, in the, interest of safe administration of criminal justice and law ."
2. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Naseem (petitioner) lodged FIR No. 87 of 2017 at Police Station Zarghoonabad for an offence under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. against Muhammad Naveed Khan (complainant in FIR No. 51 of 2020) and others with the allegation that on 7th June 2017 at night time accused persons Shehbaz Khan along with his companions after coming at Alamo Chowk showroom of petitioner's uncle namely Abdul Qayyum and quarreled with them and when the petitioner and his uncle along with his cousin were going to lodge the report with PS Zarghoonabad, they were stopped by Shehbaz Khan, Bahadur Khan, Naseebullah, Naveed and Muzammil at the first stop in front of the shops at Sra Ghudgai and attacked upon them.
Accused Shehbaz Khan was having a Kalashnikov whereas Naseebullah had a pistol, who made firing upon the complainant party due to which the complainant and his cousin Ameenullah were severely injured. The villagers took them to the hospital where the complainant's cousin Ameenullah succumbed to his injuries.
On the said date, i.e. 7th June 2017 the FIR No. 88/2017 was also registered with Police Station Zarghoonabad Quetta for an offence under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. against the petitioner and others on the complaint of Muhammad Naveed (complainant in FIR No.51/2019) with the alleg ation that on 7.6.2017 at 12:30 a.m. Abdul Qayyum, Baz Gul alias Khad and Ameenullah came on vehicles. Abdul Qayyum had Kalashnikov and Baz Gul was having a pistol whereas the others were having sticks attacked upon them. Muzammil, Naseebullah, Ameennulah and accused assailants got injured. People rescued them from the clutches of the assailants.
After completion of the usual investigatio n, the challan of above-referred cases was submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Quetta ("trial court "). During the trial, Dr. All Mardan, who examined the complainant/petitioner in FIR No. 87 of 2017, appeared before the court as a witness and deposed that the injuries received by the petitioner were self-infli cted. On the deposition of doctor and observation that the petitioner's injuries were self-inflicted the complainant (Naveed Khan accused in FIR No. 87 of 2017) lodged the impugned FIR No. 51 of 2020 with Police Station Zargh oonabad under sections 325, Q&D, 182, 420 and 500, P.P.C., with the allegation that the trial whereof is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI Quetta, and during the proceedings, the medical officer Dr. Ali Mardan deposed that the injuries received by the complainant Muhammad Naseem were self-inflicted. Now the petitioner seeks Quashment of the said FIR.
3. I have head the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
Section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. provides that no court is competent to take cognizance of the offence under sections 172 to 188, P.P.C., unless a complaint in writing was made by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to who he was subordinate. Admittedly the instant FIR was lodged on the statement of a private person namely Naveed Khan complainant, therefore; the registration of the FIR is violative of the provision of section 195(1)(a), Cr .P.C.
The controversy involved in the instant petition revolves around Section 195 Cr.P.C; therefore, the provision being relevant is reproduced hereunder: "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawfu l authority of public servants: Prosecution for certain offences against public justice: Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence. (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.
(b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same code namely sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 288, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding, in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate, or
(c) of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.
The language couched in the provision supra clearly imposes an impediment on taking cognizance and begins with the words that, "No court shall take cognizance........."
4. In the referred to provision the subsection (1) prohibits that no cognizance can be taken by any court for offences falling under section 195, Cr.P.C. except on a complaint in writing of such court where said offences are committed or some other court to which such court is subordinate, the private person has no authority to file a complaint; therefore, the only administration concerned and the court has the power to file the complaint about offences mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section 195, Cr.P.C. and unless there is a complaint by the of ficer of the court, no court can take the cognizance of the of fences mentioned in provision supra.
5. The general rule is that any person irrespective of the fact whether he is aggrie ved or not and his interest is at stake or otherwise knowing the commission of any offence may set the law in motion, but the provisions as contained in sections 195, Cr.P.C. to 198, Cr.P.C. contain exceptions to the said general rule from taking cognizance of certain offences unless the functionary concerned institutes a complaint. It is well-settled by now that "provision of section 190, Cr.P.C. lays down the general rule that any person can set the criminal law in motion but section 195, Cr.P.C. is one of the exceptions to that rule. A Section 195, Cr.P.C. provides that, in case of an offer e under section 195, Cr.P.C. only the public authority concerned and Court has the right to file a complaint. Unless there is a complaint by uch public authority or Court, as the case may be, no Criminal Court shall take cognizance of these offences. Every offence mentioned in section 195, Cr.P.C. though affects a private person, yet he stands deprived of his general vested right to have recourse to the criminal law. The purpose of enacting section 195, Cr.P.C. has long been well identified. It may at best be considered in the context of sections 190, 476 and 476-A of the Code. Section 190 lays down the general rule that any person can set the criminal law in motion, and section 195 is one of the exceptions to that rule. The latter says that in the category of cases mentioned in its clause (a), only the public authority concerned and in the category of cases mentioned in clauses (b) and (c) only the Court concerned has right to file a complaint. Unless there is a complaint by such publi c authority or Court as the case may be, no criminal Court shall take cognizance of these offences. It is the judicial process, in other words, the administration of public justice which is the direct and immediate object or victim of those offences and it is only by misleading the Courts and thereby perverting the due course of law and justice that the ultimate object of harming the private party is designed to be realized. As the purity of the Court is directly violated by the crime, the Court is considered to be the only party entitled to consider the desirability of the complainant against the guilty parts'.
6. In view of section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C, the private person has no authority to file a complaint. The right to prosecute under the relevant section has been restricted, and courts are prohibited from taking cognizance of the offences mentioned therein unless and until public servants or the Courts directly concerned or their superior officers or Court themselves make the complaint. The provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. are mandatory . In the case of Mansab Ali v. The State reported in PLD 1971 SC 124 it has been observed as under: It is an elementary principle that if a mandatory condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court or authority is not fulfilled, then the entire proceedings which follow become illegal and suffer from want of jurisdiction..."
Reliance is also placed on the case titled as Abdul Wahab Khan v.Muhammad Nawaz and 7 others (2000 SCMR 1904 ).
The accused is booked in FIR No. 51/2020 of Police Station Zarghoonabad lodged under sections 325 Q&D, 182, 420 and 500, P.P.C.. The section 195(1), Cr.P.C. provides that no court is competent to take cognizance of the offences under sections 172, P.P.C. to 188, P.P.C. unless a complaint in writing was Made by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. Admittedly the instant FIR, was lodged on the statement of a private person, namely Muhammad Naveed Khan. The language of election 182, P.P.C. does not refer to any private person, and relates "to cause public servant to use his power" and in case if such information is found false and public servant on such false information has taken any action or omitted to act, then such public servant can initiate a proceeding under section 182, P.P.C.. The provisions of section 182, P.P.C. are reproduced hereunder: "182. False information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. Whoever 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 will thereby cause, such public servant-
(a) 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
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person."
The offences under sections 182 and 500, P.P.C. are non-cognizable offences. There are two types of offences, i.e. cognizable and non-cognizable. In cognizable offences, the FIR has to be registered by an Officer Incharge of a Police Station, and receiving an information of a commission of an offence, therefore, he has to start an investigation himself or to assign it to an officer of the concerned police station and can arrest an accused without a warrant from the Magistrate. On the other hand, for the registration of a non-cognizable offence, section 155 of the Cr.P.C., provides a procedure, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "155. Information in non-cognizable cases. (I) When information is given to an Officer Incharge of a Police Station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter in a book to be kept as aforesaid the substance of such information and refer the informant to the [Magistrate].
(2) Investigation into non-cognizable cases. No police-officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate of first or second class having power to try such case [or sent the same for trial to the Court of Session].
(3) Any police-officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of police station may exercise in a cognizable case."
Moreover , out of the non-cognizable offences, for the registration of a case under sections 182, P.P.C., section 195, Cr.P.C. has provided the above procedure, which has already been discussed.
7. In the instant case, the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR registered against him mainly on the ground that the complainant had no authority to lodge the FIR against him and the offence under sections 182 and 500, P.P.C. are non-cognizable of fences.
8. So far as the truthfulness and falsehood of deposition of the doctors about the self-inflicted injuries of the petitioner is concerned, same would be determined by the trial court in the main case, i.e. the FIR No. 87/2017 is pending before the trial court.
In view of the above, the jurisdiction of this court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of any court to secure the ends of justice. No doubt, the inherent power should be rarely and sparingly invoked only in the interest of justice, so as to redress grievances for which, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no other procedure or remedy is available. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction, which cannot over-ride provisions of the court; but cases may arise where demands of justice require immediate, real and substantial justice. In such circumstances, the court would be justified to exercise their jurisdiction to save a party from harassment and abuse of the process of court. Section 561-A may be used sparingly , but it confers wide powers on the court to meet such eventualities and pass any order , which ends of justice may require. The case in hand, in my perception, does fall within the parameters referred to hereinabove.
9. In the instant case, the FIR was registered on the report of private complainant, who is neither permitted to lodge the FIR nor he was a public servant, who is authorized for the purpose as envisa ged under section 195, Cr.P.C.; hence the proceedings carried out by the concerned police station are void and nullity in the eyes of the law .
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition filed by the petitioner namely Muhammad Naseem son of Baz Muhammad is allowed. Consequently , FIR No. 51 of 2020 of Police Station Zarghoonabad Quetta under sections 325, 182, 420 and 500, P.P.C. and the proceedings thereto qua the petitioner stand quashed. Order accordingly .