Through the instant petition the petitioners have challenged the F.I.R. No. 133/94 dated 7-11-1994 P.S. Karianwala, District Gujrat registered under section 186/353, P.P.C. Upon a complaint made by the City Magistrate, Gujrat. .
2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that upon an application given by one Ghulam Sarwar son of Akbar A.I to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat asking for the demolition of the wall of the house of the petitioners, being an encroachment, the complainant-Magistrate alongwith others went to the site for the purpose of demolition of the said wall. According to the narration of the facts in the F.I.R. When the complainant reached the site the petitioners/accused came out of the house and said to the complainant that the wall is the part and parcel of their house and they will not permit him to demolish it. As there was some likelihood of resistance so the complainant went away without demolition of the wall and gave a written complaint to the S.H.O.
Police Station Karianovala for the registration of the questioned FIR against the petitioner No.1 Mst, Ghulam Fatima accused who is aged 70 years. Mst. Riaz Begum aged 55 years, Mst. Shafqat Begum aged 48 years, Mst. Khan Begum aged 67 years, Mst. Shaista Begum aged 25 years whereas Imran A.I aged 12/13 years. Further, submits that the registration of the F.I.R. Is mala fide and illegal as on the same day when the F.I.R. In question was registered and the wall was demolished by the complainant and others no force, assault or violence was used by the petitioners against the demolition party who completed their mission successfully. In fact during the proceedings of the demolition of the wall as is apparent from the report of the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner that the encroachment was removed with the assistance of Pervaiz Mehdi, S.I. And eight constables. There was also resistance from some ladies. According to S.I., a lady was also injured seriously soon after their departure and a criminal case of the occurrence was registered on the report of the Magistrate. This report is dated 7-11-1994. He further contended that the original informant Ghulam Sarwar was inimical towards the petitioner there were many criminal cases registered inter se the petitioner and Ghulam Sarwar informant and just relying on his application the learned Magistrate demolished the wall.
3. The present F.I.R. Is a counter-blast to the sustaining five injuries on various parts of the body of Mst. Ghulam Fatima during demolition. Hence, the provisions of sections 186 and 353, P.P.C are not attracted to the present case of petitioners. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Ramzan v.
Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore Division, Lahore (PLD 1983 Lahore 372), Riaz Majid v. The State (PLD 1976 Lahore 144) and Mt., Darkan v. Emperor (AIR 1928 Lahore 827). He has vehemently argued that in order to attract the provisions of sections 186 and 353, P.P.C. The word "obstruction" denotes an obstruction of physical nature, actual resistance or obstacle put on the way of a public servant and the word implies the use of criminal force. In the present case no abusive language or physical resistance or obstruction was made.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and seen the comments filed by the S.H.O. Para (G) admits the contentions of the petitioners that no force or violence or even abusive language was used by the ladies or other inhabitants of the house against the complainant or other persons accompanying him except that they had stated that the wall belongs to them and they would not permit the same to be demolished. The S.H.O. Has replied this para to be correct.
5. The learned State counsel has not been able to give explanation why the S.H.O. Conceded to the main ground of the petition. If no abusive language or force or violence or physical resistance has been used by the accused---petitioners or other inhabitants of the house how offences under sections 186 and 353, P.P.C. Are made out. I have gone through the report of the learned Magistrate submitted to the Deputy Commissioner which shows that infact the demolition was completed on the same day when the F.I.R. Was registered. The role attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R. Is just natural and plausible because if any public servant or others will come to demolish a part of a house whether it is lawfull or unlawful, natural and plausible re-action would be that the property subject to demolition belongs to them, Otherwise the F.I.R. Does not depose any sort of physical resistance of violence or any obstruction used against a public servant. Since one lady who may be lying on the wall to save the same got injured so under the fear or apprehension that she may not file a complaint against the demolition party the M.I.C. In the present case got registered the F.I.R. Himself.
6. The object of justice is to protect the human dignity, honour, respect, life and liberty. The facts stated in the F.I.R. Do not depose any offence committed by the aforementioned ladies. The innocent and natural resistance of poor people who cannot endeavour risk of demolition of any part of the property, cannot be termed as an obstruction of physical nature within the meaning of sections 186 and 353, P.P.C. The present F.I.R. Is the outcome of ulterior motive of the complainant who after being apprised of the situation that one lady got injured during demolition immediately lodged the above F.I.R. Although the demolition of wall was completed on the same day and there was no necessity of registering a criminal case against the present petitioners.
7. In view of my above said observations, F.I.R in question is the outcome of mala fide and ulterior design of the complainant who got it registered as a counter-blast under apprehensions of some complaint being filed by the complainant. Unless the facts narrated in the F.I.R. Attract the provision of the offences mentioned therein law does not permit to jeopardise the liberty of any individual and subject him to all kinds of harassment, humiliation by way of meaningless criminal prosecution which on its face does not show the commission of a cognizable offence.
8. After careful perusal of law, I allow the instant petition-and quash the aforementioned F.I.R.