1. ' This petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has been moved for the quashment of the proceedings of a case initiated against the petitioner under sections 182 and 211, P.P.C.
2. 2 The brief facts of the case are that on 21st of February, 1982, the petitioner apprised th.e Assistant Commissioner, Ahmadpur East with regard to the trespass into his land by the persons named as accused in the aforesaid application. The learned Assistant Commissioner, Ahmadpur East, ordered the Police Station Ahmadpur East to register a case. Accordingly, a case under sections 447, 506 & 147, P.P.C. Was registered by the aforesaid police station. After investigation, the S.H.O., Police Station Ahmadpur East, came to the conclusion that the allegations made in the aforesaid application were false and thus he proceeded against the petitioner under section 182/211, P.P.C.
3. And a complaint was sent to the Court of Assistant Commissioner, in this behalf for the trial of the petitioner.
4. 3 The complaint and the proceedings thereunder had been challenged through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In support of the contentions, reliance has been placed upon the case reported as Malik Muhammad Sadiq v. State 1977 P Cr. L J 445, it was contended that the complaint was violative of section 195, Cr.P.C. It was further contended that such complaint could have only been lodged by the Assistant Commissioner and not by the S.H.O. And, therefore, the initiation of the proceedings on the part of the S.H.O. Was illegal and without jurisdiction.
4. 1 have heard the learned counsel at length and have also gone through the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to above. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Bhatti, counsel for the respondent has cited a judgment delivered by the Peshawar High Court reported as Salah Muhammad v. Abdur Rehman and 2 others 1985 P Cr. L J 1055 Pesh. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. In these circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner, had only ordered for the registration of a case which after investigation was found to be false and, therefore, the S.H.O.
5. Proceeded under section 182/211, P.P.C. Against the petitioner and the complaint was sent to the Assistant Commissioner who had earlier ordered the registration of the case. According to the learned counsel, there has been no violation of any law so as to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
6. I have considered the arguments raised by both the sides and I am of the view, that in the context of the facts of this case, it was not necessary that the Assistant Commissioner should have filed a complaint. The S.H.O. Was a public servant, to whom the application was referred and who in discharging of his duties investigated the case and found the allegations to be false, therefore, he was the competent public servant to lodge the complaint against the petitioner.
7. ' Considering all the circumstances, I find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel.
8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.