SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, J. Through-the instant Intra Court Appeal, the Appellant has assailed Order dated 10:01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers whereby Writ Petition No. 4328/2021 filed by the Appellant has been dismissed in limine.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant filed writ petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 04/2021 dated 17.03.2021 registered under section 3 read with section 4 of the Officials Secrets Act, 1923 (herein after referred to as the "Act of 1923") registered with Federal Investigation Agency, Islamabad.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant, inter alia, contends that the Court can take cognizance of the matter only on the complaint of an authorized officer of the Government of Pakistan under section 13 of the Act of 1923; that the said provision starts with a non-obstante clause meaning thereby that the provisions of Cr.P.C. are excluded and the procedure provided in the said section of the Act is to be followed. Reliance was placed on case reported as "Muhammad Mohsin Ghuman v.
Government of Punjab 2013 SCMR 85"; that learned Single Judge-in-Chambers while placing reliance on the judgment of august Supreme Court in case of "Muhammad Nazir v. Fazal Karim and others; PLD 2012 SC 892" misconstrued and erred as the fact and circumstances in both the propositions are quite different; that the Appellant is a civil servant and the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020 being special law provide the mechanism of any proceeding initiated against a civil servant, hence the instant appeal.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. First and foremost it is noted that instant ICA is against the order passed by learned Single Judge-in-Chambers while hearing the writ petition wherein Appellant/Petitioner sought quashing of FIR, therefore, that question arises is as to whether or not the instant ICA is maintainable in view of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (herein after referred to as the "Ordinance of 1972").
6. The above controversy has been resolved by the judgment of Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Nawazul Hag Chohan v. The State 2003 SCMR 1597 in light of the celebrated judgment of Karim Bibi v. Hussain Baksh PLD 1984 SC 344 in the following terms: "31. Civil Appeal No. 553 of 1994 with the leave of this Court arises out of a counter-case viz. FIR No. 495 of 1991 registered under sections ..., P.P.C. at the behest of ... Appellant Malik Anjum Farooq Paracha and others sought-quashment of the said FIR. In Writ petition No. 178 of 1993 before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which was allowed against which ICA No. 7 of 1993 was filed by ...
Manzoorul Haq and others which was accepted and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court for the quashment in writ petition was set aside. This order, however, was challenged by Malik Anjum Farooq. Paracha appellant in Civil Petition No. 129 of 1994 in which leave to appeal was granted, inter alia, on the ground as to whether or not ICA lie against the order passed in writ petition by the learned Single Judge and as to whether or not the word "Proceedings" mentioned in the proviso of section 3(1) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, includes the FIR. On this aspect of the matter, we have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised at bar. The above controversy has been resolved by this Court in the case of Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Baksh and another (PLD 1984 SC 344) and Settlement Commissioner
(L) and others v. Mauj-Din and others (1989 SCMR 1351) while holding that in view of section 3(2) of the Law reforms Ordinance, 1972, ICA is not maintainable. Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 553 of 1994 is allowed and order dated 14.03.1993 passed in ICA No. 7 of 1993 by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, is set aside". [Emphasis added].
7. A Division Bench of the Honorable Lahore High Court further expounded on the matter in the case of Hussain Can Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federal Board of Revenue 2017 YLR Note 386, in light of the judgment in Nawazul Haq Chohan (Supra) and various other judgments as follows: "11. After analytical study of word "proceedings", with reference to dictionaries and considering the interpretation of the said word by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above referred cases,' we have no doubt in our mind to hold that the word "proceedings" in fact carries a vast manifestation covering almost every stage heading towards advancement of an issue before a court or tribunal, right from its inception till its conclusion. In legal parlance this word would mean institution, continuation and conclusion of an action in law. To be more precise, the word "proceedings" would connote, the manner in which judicial business is to be carried out before a court, tribunal or judicial officer, including all steps and actions right from commencement of such judicial business, its determination and then its implementation or execution. Whereas, the FIR, being just- first information report about commission of an offence, does not carry such significance so as to be covered by the scope of word "proceedings". Hence, the. Intro Court Appeal against an order for quashing of FIR or refusing to quash an FIR passed in a writ petition, is not maintainable."
[Emphasis added].
8. In the light of the aforementioned rulings we are not inclined to hold the instant ICA as maintainable in view of the bar contained in the proviso to section 3(2) of the Ordinance of 1972.
9. Even, otherwise the Appellant has failed to identify any error of law or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers, which would warrant interference by this Court. The contents of the FIR prima facie spell out the offence under the provision of law pursuant to which FIR has been registered. Subsection (3) of section 13 of the Act of 1923 pertains to taking cognizance of an offence by a Court which does not place any embargo on registration of FIR.
Insofar as the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020 are concerned, the same only pertain to departmental action, which in no way can substitute or preclude investigation or prosecution of a criminal offence.
10. In view of the above discussion, the instant Intra Court Appeal stands dismissed in limine.