' For the purposes of this application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The following statement of facts would suffice.
2. The applicant is a tenant of respondent No,2 in respect of a hotel known as "CAFE KAMAL", Manzoor Colony, Karachi on a rent of Rs,1,200 per month. The said respondent No,2 had attempted to dispossess the applicant for cabin the year 1989 and consequently the applicant had to obtain stay order from the Court of Xth Civil Judge (South), Karachi, by filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is alleged that on 23-5-1990 the said respondent No,2, who is a retired Head Constable of Police came to the disputed hotel along with respondents Nos. 3 to 5, who were armed with T.T. Pistols. They started abusing the applicant and criminally intimidated him. The applicant went to Mohmoodabad P.S., and lodged FIR against respondents Nos.2 to 5 which was registered under sections 504, 506(2)/34, P.P.C. The investigation was initially carried out by Raja Abdul Jaleel, A.S.I., which was subsequently entrusted to Liaquat Noor, S.I.P. Under the orders of D.S.P.
Who was at one time a colleague of respondent No,2. The said Liaquat Noor S.I.P. Submitted a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Before S.D.M. Saddar, Karachi, with the recommendation that the F.I.R. Lodged by applicant being false he may be prosecuted under section 211, P.P.C. This report was approved by S.D.M., Saddar, Karachi, on 11-5-1991, which order was challenged before the Sessions Judge (South), Karachi in Criminal Revision No,23 of 1991. The learned Sessions Judge who heard the revision application was of the view that the impugned order being an administrative order was not amenable to revisional jurisdiction and consequently he dismissed the revision application on 8-7-1991. It is in these circumstances that the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard Mr. Raja Sher Muhammad, learned counsel for applicant. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Abdul Hakeem Bijarani, learned AA.-G. For State.
4. In the case of Bahadur and another v. The State, reported in PLD 1985 SC 62, it was made clear that the order of cancellation of criminal case under section 173, Cr.P.C. Is not amenable to, revisional jurisdiction. At page 67 the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "The revisional powers under the Criminal Procedure Code (Sections 435, 436, 439 and 439-A, Cr.P.C.) are exercisable only in respect of "any proceeding" conducted by "inferior", "Criminal Court".
The order cancelling a case qualifies as proceeding, equally so the Magistrate passing the order as inferior, in relation to Court of Session and the High Court. The only question requiring determination is whether the Magistrate in cancelling the case acts as a Criminal Court. Criminal Procedure Code contains no definition of Court nor does the Penal Code. In section 20 of Penal Code "Court of Justice" is defined as "a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially". This definition is of avail for the purposes of Criminal Procedure Code as subsection (2) of section 4 thereof provides "all words and expressions used herein and defined in the Pakistan Penal Code, and not hereinbefore defined shall be deemed to have the meanings respectively attributed to them by that Code". The High Court has taken the view, and we think rightly so, that under the Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate is entrusted with diverse duties and in dischaiging the same does not always function as a Court, conduct judicial proceedings or is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. Some of this powers and duties under the Code are administrative, executive or ministerial and he discharges these duties not as a Court but as a persona designata."
' The view taken by learned Sessions Judge in this behalf, therefore, appears to be correct.
5. During the course of arguments it was also contended that in pursuance of order, dated 11-5-1991 passed by learned S.D.M. Saddar, Karachi, the applicant has been prosecuted and process for the offence under section 182/211, P.P.C. Was issued against him by A.C.M-X (South), Karachi on 28-4- 1992. The learned counsel for applicant, has, therefore, consumed his entire energy to satisfy this Court that the prosecution of applicant on the strength of the aforesaid order had no legal sanctity.
This contention is, however, devoid of any force. Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed simply because the accused considers that the allegations made against him are false. A The allegations made in the complaint disclose an offence and it is for the trial Court to weigh evidence and to determine whether the allegations are false or true. In fact no legal infirmity is found in taking cognizance against the applicant. The compliance of section 195, Cr.P.C. Has also been made and it is B too premature at this stage to say that the investigation carried out by Liaquat Noor, S.I.P. Was biased.
6. No case for interference is made out and the application made under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is accordingly dismissed.