The facts giving rise to this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., are that the petitioner was Investigating Officer in case F.I.R. No. 77 of 1980, dated 27-4-1980, under sections 148, 324, 302 and 307/149, P.P.C. Police Station Sialkot Cantt. After the investigation, Muhammad Iqbal and five others were sent up to the Sessions Court to face their trial for the afore-mentioned offences. The case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, who, vide his judgment dated 9-2-1981, convicted Muhammad Iqbal accused under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death subject to confirmation by this Court and a fine of Rs.5,000. The remaining accused were acquitted. While dealing with the arrest and recoveries, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner had prepared `false and fabricated evidence in the case' and ordered for issuance of show-cause notice to him. Ultimately,, a complaint under section 193/194, P.P.C. Was filed against hint which was assigned to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) for disposal, who issued press against him.
The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the aforesaid proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 4 of Chapter 8-A, Volume III of the High Court Rules and Orders, to contend that learned Sessions Judge was required to await the result of the decision in the appeal and the connected murder reference before issuing notice to the petitioner.
He has drawn my attention to the judgment reported in 1985 P Cr. L J 2783 to contend that during the hearing pf the murder reference and appeal filed by aforesaid condemned prisoner Muhammad Iqbal, the Division Bench had observed that the petitioner had conducted the investigation dishonestly in order to show favour to the accuse d party and it was a fit case `where departmental action Should be takes against the S.H.O. By the police authorities'. It is submitted that in view of the above observation only departmental action is called for and there is absolutely no justification for prosecution under section 193/194, P.P.C. Which clearly amounts to abuse of the process of Court.
Learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Perusal of the judgment, referred to by the learned counsel, reveals that a prayer was made for initiating a Magisterial inquiry against the conduct of the S.H.O. (petitioner herein). The Court observed that he had conducted the investigation dishonestly and it was a fit case for departmental action. In view of A this observation, the matter stands concluded and there seems no justification for continuing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the same are quashed.