Rqja Afrasiah Khan, J.~ The petitioner Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi Advocate has moved this constitutional petition praying therein that registration of the case F.I.R. No. 406/87 registered against him under sections 506/353/379 P.P.C, at police station Depalpur may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a member of the Lahore High Court Bar Association. He is also LL.M, degree holder from the University of London. He was elected as a councillor in the Local Bodies Election from his village Mir Amanullah, Tehsil Depalpur District Okara. The petitioner was engaged by one Safdar Shah alias Alaf Shah as his counsel in Writ Petition No.2265/87 and in Crl.Original No.91/1987 in which Iftikhar Punoo, S.H.O. P.S. Depalpur respondent No.2 and other police officers were involved. The said police officers including respondent No.2 were found guiIty and accordingly the writ petition referred to above was disposed of by his Lordship Mr. Justice Rustam S. Sidhwa. The allegation is that the local administration of Depalpur Tehsil desired that the petitioner should not perform his professional duties regarding the above said two matters. In this connection the Assistant Commissioner, Depalpur, respondent No.1 adopted different methods to refrain the petitioner from performing his professional duties. However, the petitioner did not care to oblige the said respondent and he boldly continued to do his professional duties. In this situation, the aforesaid Assistant Commissioner and the S.H.O. Depalpur, respondents No.1 and 2 were very much annoyed with him.
The petitioner states that he is a patient of high blood pressure and in that connection he has placed on record copies of prescriptons as Annexures A and A/l. In those days in the Local Bodies Election, as stated earlier, the petitioner was declared elected unopposed as member of the Union Council of Mir Amanullah and he wanted to contest the election of Chairman of the Union Council.
The petitioner on 11.11.1987 went to National Bank Limited, Depalpur to desosit his elcetion security money. There were many customers present in the premises of the bank. There was no queue and that the people were standing every where in the Bank. The petitioner stood there for a while and because of his ailment and weakness, he requested respondent No.4, Muhammad Akram Bank Officer that he should be shown some indulgence owing to his sickness and weakness and that he should be given the receipt of payment so as to enable him to go back to Lahore immediately. The said Officer behaved in a very obnoxious manner. The petitioner repeated his request explaining his poor heaIth condition which in fact infuriated the Bank Officer without any justification. The said respondent not only insuIted him but issued threats that he would be thrown out of the Bank. In his fit of anger the Bank Officer got up from his chair and tried to use criminal force against the petitioner. A large number of people, who were present in the Bank premises intervened and save the situation from going bad to worse. In that behalf the petitioner has placed a number of affidavits of the people, who witnessed the occurrence as Annexure B to B/16. The petitioner came back to Lahore because of his ailment on the same day. On 13.11.1987, the petitioner went to Police Station Depalpur with a view to get the registration of a cas against the said Officer. There he came to know for the First time that a case under Sections 506/379/353 P.P.C, has already been registered against him vide Annexures C.
2. The contention is that a false case has been registered against the petitioner out of the malice and mala fide on the part of respondents No.2 and 3 at the instance of respondent No.4. Learned counsel submits that no case is made out even if the allegation as disclosed in the F.I.R, are admitted to be correct. The learned Additional Advocate General has made a statement that he has no objection if the impugned F.I.R, is quashed as he has definite instructions not to defend the same.
3. The version of the Bank Officer, respondent No.4 as mentioned in the F.I.R. Annexure C is that on 11.11.1987 at 2.30 p.m. He was busy in receiving the election fee from the candidates. The petitioner appeared at the scene to deposit his election fee. He insisted to get the receipt of his deposit immedately. He was asked to wait but despite that he demanded the immediate issuance of the receipt to him. However, the petitioner started abusing him and gave him a fist blow. He also snatched away all the vouchers from his hand and thereafter gave him a slap as well on his face.
This incident was witnessed by another Bank Officer, Sharif Muhammad Qadri, who intervened and handed over the deposit receipt to the petitioner. He while, leaving the Bank premises threw 27 vouchers bearing No.326 to 352 on the table. On these allegations, the Assistant Commissioner respondent No.1 directed the S.H.O, respondent No.2 to register a case against the petitioner under sections 506/379/353 P.P.C.
4. The learned counsel vehemently contended that there was absolutely no application of mind on the part of respondent No.1 when he directed the Police Officer for registration of the said case. A bare reading of the F.I.R, shows that the provisions contained in sections 506, 379 and 353 P.P.C, are not attracted to the facts of the case. He urged that a number of people were present at the spot at the relevant time who have sworn affidavits that no such incident took place at all as mentioned by respondent No.4. On the contrary, according to the affidavits, an assauIt was made upon the petitioner by the complainant. The Investigation Officer is present. He has admitted that the affidavits Annexures B to B/16 are available his file and according to these documents, no such occurrence took place. He further submits that he cannot deny the correctness of these affidavits.
The learned Additional Advocate General frankly submits that he has nothing to defend the impugned F.I.R, as stated earlier. The allegation that the petitioner appeared as counsel in writ petition No.2265/1987 and criminal original No.91/1987 in which cases respondent Iftikhar Punoo, S.H.O. Police Station Depalpur and other Police Officers were involved has not been denied by the Investigating Officer nor by the learned Additional Advocate General. This allegation, therefore, goes uncontested. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner very carefully and I am of the view that the false implication of the petitioner in the case in view of the earlier background cannot be ruled out aItogether. It appears that the incident has definitely been exaggerated by the Bank Officers. The respondents did not turn up to contest the case despite the fact that they have been personally served. They did not file the written statement in the case. Thus the presumption under law is that they have nothing to contest the facts narrated in the writ petition. Aditionally, the learned Additional Advocate General did not decide to contest the case on behalf of the State. It appears that the petitioner has been involved falsely in the case on account of illwill on the part of the local police. Thus there was absolutely no basis for registration of the case against the petitioner. The mala fide on the part of the respondents is sufficiently established against the petitioner. Respectfully following the rule laid down in Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan (P.L.D. 1971 S.C. 677), the case F.I.R. 406/87 Annexure C is quashed. In consequence this petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.