' Mst. Razia Bibi, petitioner, has sought the quashment of the proceedings arising out of a case entitled State v. Mst. Razia Bibi under section 182, P.P.C. Pending in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Gujranwala by moving this quashment petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that the information given by her to the police for registration of a criminal case was found false and baseless. It was mentionegin the Kalandra prepared under section 182, P.P.C. That there was absolutely no evidence to show that in fact the occurrence as alleged by the petitioner took place. It was pointed out that a lot of public time had been wasted and that Haji Muhammad Mukhtar and others were subjected to uncalled for harassm ent and mental torture at the hands of the informant.
3. The learned counsel contends that the Investigating Agency has misused its powers inasmuch as the complaint of the petitioner was not properly entertained and considered in its true perspective as required by law. In this behalf, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the application Annexure `C' to the writ petition wherein apart from the detail of allegations; the names of the eye-witnesses were also mentioned by the petitioner in support of her case. The learned counsel has specifically disowned the subsequent application,entertained and relied upon by the Investigating Officer by saying that the same has been fabricated to defeat the ends of justice.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, learned Advocate-General at considerable length. The learned Law Officer has frankly conceded at the very outset, that he is unable to defend the initiation of the criminal proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against the petitioner. I have carefully read the application (Annexure 'C') and this application alone has been owned by the petitioner as observed earlier. In the said application it has been mentioned specifically that the accused entered into her house by scaling over the wail and that they also searched her house without any legal justification. It was also complained seriously that the petitioner and her young daughters were threatened with dire consequences by the intruders and were made to stand while facing the wall at pistol point. It is alleged that Muhammad Umar, Zahid and other accused dragged the petitioner and her daughters and thus were severely harassed. There hair were also pulled by the police. They hurled filthy abuses upon them. An alarm was raised whereupon Malik Abdul Hameed, Rizwanul Haq and Muhammad Munir P.Ws. Reached the spot and rescued them from the clutches of the accused. It is established that the aforesaid application was entertained by the Moharrar Head Constable on 7-11989 and an entry thereof was also made in the police record. In the circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the police concerned to have proceeded further in the case on the basis of the application Annexure 'C'. It has not been done so with ulterior motives. It is stated by the respondent that another application was moved by the petitioner and on the basis of the application, a case under section 452/506/354/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered against the accused. The facts mentioned in the said application are wholly different from the facts mentioned in her application vide Annexure 'C'. This application has specifically been disowned by the petitioner. Further, the allegations leveled in this application were found to be false by the Investigating Agency. The contention of the learned counsel is that the application on the basis of which the case was registered vide Annexure 'D' has been fabricated by the respondent with a view to defeat the very purpose of her application stated above. I have scrutinized the police record wherein an entry has been made showing that the application Annexure 'C' was entertained by the investigator and that the contents of the said application were reiterated by the petitioner. It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the Police Officer to have proceeded in the matter in the light of the allegations leveled by the petitioner in the application. There appears, therefore, no necessity whatsoever to have moved another application for the registration of a case in presence of her first application. The Investigating Officer was wholly unable to show as to what were the circumstances in which the petitioner felt the need of moving another application, completely different from the one already moved by her vide Annexure 'C'. It looks certain that the investigator was annoyed with the petitioner as she had leveled serious allegations against the local police in her complaint. In the circumstances, it was nothing but natural for the police to react and this reaction on their part resulted into the commencement of the uncalled for proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against the petitioner. I have read the Kalandra with great care. I do not at all find any justification for the commencement of the proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner went to the police for redressed of her grievances and instead she was implicated in this false case simply to take revenge from her. The petitioner has a vested right under the Constitution and the law to ask for protection and she was perfectly justified in proceeding further against the culprits by moving a complaint against the accused. As observed earlier, the learned Law Officer at the very outset submitted that he would not defend the action taken by the investigator in the case. However, the Investigating Officer submitted that he initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under the directions of the local Magistrate. In order to verify his plea, Mr. Atta Muhammad Jag, Magistrate, Gujranwala was summoned with record of the case. He made a statement saying that he did not give any permission to the investigator to initiate proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against the petitioner nor the same was required to do so under law. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am persuaded to say that the provisions of section 182, P.P.C. Are not attracted in the case in hand and the said provisions have been misused by the police with clear mala fides on their part.
In order to appreciate the command of law as mentioned in section 182, P.P.C., the said section is reproduced below:--
5. "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, shall be punished with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both."
From close reading, it appears that the provisions of section 182, P.P.C. Are not at all attracted to the case in hand. The Investigating Officer did net come to the conclusion that the information given to him by the petitioner was false. The A complaint of the petitioner was never considered by the police nor her statement n that behalf was recorded. Similarly, the statements of her witnesses were also not recorded by the police. The police, therefore, cannot be permitted to come to sudden and frivolous conclusion that the petitioner has committed an offence under section 182, P.P.C. By giving a false information to them. The prosecution has failed to prove that the necessary ingredients of section 182, P.P.C. Are attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. There is not even a shred of evidence to demonstrate that the application Annexure 'C' was false nor anything in that behalf has been said by the respondent Police Officer. In the circumstances, the commencement of said proceedings against the petitioner is the result of established mala fides on the part of the police which cannot be allowed to continue. I, therefore, proceed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C. Entitled State v. Mst. Razia Bibi pending in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, Gujranwala, The petition succeeds and is allowed.