' The facts giving rise to this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of proceedings in the case The State v. Muhammad Abdullah and others, briefly, are that on 27-7-1984, a case under section 186/506/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered against Muhammad Abdullah and five others including two ladies, namely, Mst. Bashiran and Mst. Safooran, on the report of Jafar Hussain Bailiff of Civil Judge, Samundri, at Police Station Tandlianwala. The allegations were that when he (bailiff) went to execute the ejectment order passed by the Civil Judge, Samundri, Muhammad Abdullah and others (accused) obstructed in the discharge of his duties, hurled brickbats upon him and members of his party and also threatened them with dire consequences. After investigation, the Challan was submitted in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Tandlianwala, who issued notices for the appearance of Muhammad Abdullah, petitioner and otheRs, The accused moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For their acquittal, which was dismissed by the trial Court, hence this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court was not competent to take the cognizance of the case on report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Submitted by the police against the accused persons inasmuch as section 195, Cr.P.C. Restrains the Courts from taking cognizance of an offence under section 186, P.P.C. Except on a complaint lodged by the public servant concerned (bailiff) or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.
' The learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that sections 148/149 and 506, P.P.C. Do not fall within the purview of section 195, Cr.P.C. And, as such, the Magistrate could take the cognizance of the case against the accused/petitioner.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that section 195, Cr.P.C. Restrains the Courts from taking cognizance of offence punishable under section 186, P.P.C. Except on a complaint by the public servant or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. Since, in the instant case, the complaint was neither filed by the bailiff nor by the Civil Judge to whom he was subordinate, therefore, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the case because the whole case had arisen from the same circumstances and if the trial for the other offences has to proceed on the basis of the same transaction, it will amount to circumventing the legal requirement. Reliance may be placed on Ch. Muhammad Roshan v. The State reported as PLD 1978 Lah.
307.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, this petition is accepted and the process issued by the trial Court on the basis of the Challan submitted by the police against the petitioner and his co- accused is quashed. Needless to say that this order does not amount to the acquittal of the petitioner and his co-accused. So, the trial Court may pass fresh order in accordance with law on the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Submitted by the police, if so desired.