' Muhammad Sharif seeks quashment of the proceedings in complaint titled "Muhammad Aslam v.
Muhammad Sharif and others pending before the Resident Magistrate, Pir Mahal, District Toba Tek Singh through this petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is an Ex-Chairman of Town Committee, Pir Mahal, District Toba Tek Singh and he in that capacity made an announcement that every citizen of Pir Mahal should remove all the encroachments and should not occupy the Government Properties and footpaths and if those encroachments were not removed within three days it was ordered that all unauthorised constructions and encroachments would be removed in the public interest. On the presentation of the petitioner, A.C. Pir Mahal also passed orders under section 144, Cr.P.C. to the same effect on 4-3-1991. Some applications were also received by him from the residents of Pir Mahal and he passed the order in accordance with law. Any how on 20-3- 1991 the employees of the Municipal Committee, Pir Mahal and the police removed the encroachments including the encroachment made by one Muhammad Aslam and also took into possession his fire-wood lying on the Government land. On the application of said Muhammad Aslam his fire wood was returned after the imposition of fifty rupees fine.
3. Muhammad Aslam, being aggrieved of this filed Writ Petition No.2458 of 1991 before this Court for the registration of the case against the petitioner and other officers-of the Town Committee. My learned brother Mr. Justice Raja Afrasiab vide order dated 25-9-1991 was pleased to order that the S.H.O. P.S. Pir Mahal shall dispose of the application of Muhammad Aslam on merits and according to law if he appears before him. Upon the application made by the respondent a case was registered under section 406, P.P.C. on 27-7-1991 but the same was cancelled after investigation as it was found as false.
4. The respondent Muhammad Aslam filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the Ilaqa Magistrate, Pir Mahal who sent the same for investigation to the Naib Tehsildar under section 202, Cr.P.C. who after the investigation submitted a report that from the face of it the complaint was bogus. Upon the receipt of this report the learned Magistrate without advancing any good reasons summoned the petitioner and others as accused in the case under section 406, P.P.C. This petition has been filed against that process issued by respondent No.2.
4-A. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court did not judicially consider the report submitted by the Tehsildar under section 202, Cr.P.C. as when he himself had sent the case to the Naib Tehsildar under section 202, Cr.P.C. for inquiry and report then he should have passed a detailed and speaking order to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent conversely submitted that the learned Magistrate was competent to issue the process under section 204, Cr.P.C. in spite of the fact that the Inquiry Officer under section 202, Cr.P.C. had reported that the complaint was false and bogus.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the material available on record and have also studied the case-law on the subject. I fmd that under section 204, Cr.P.C. if in the opinion of a Court taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the Court shall issue the process in the form of summons for the attendance of the accused.
In this case, I fmd that the learned Magistrate although did not pass a speaking order while disagreeing with the report of the Naib Tehsildar but under the law he was competent to pass the order of summoning the accused. The negative report of the Inquiry Officer does not stand in the way before the satisfaction of the learned trial Court finding a prima facie case against an accused. The inquiry proceedings prior to the issue of process to the accused do not amount to taking cognizance of the case and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified to issue the process. I, therefore, find no force in this petition which is dismissed.
7. Before parting with the order I want to observe that the petitioner if so advised may move the learned trial Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal raising all these contentions before the learned trial Court who will decide the same on merits and strictly in accordance with law.