1. Applicant Muhammad Alam has moved this Court for taking action under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of criminal case against him which has been filed on the complaint of Sub-Inspector of Police Ahmed A.I Jakhrani who was S.H.O. Of Police Station Mirokhan at the relevant time.
2. Mr. Issardas learned Advocate for Additional Advocate-General has however, stated that since the charge under section 182/211, P.P.C. Has also been framed in this case the proceedings against the applicant are not illegal and cannot be quashed.
3. The provisions of sections 182 and 211, P.P.C. Are similar in nature and I do not agree that the accused could be convicted for both the sections. Since the charge against the applicant is that he had moved a false application before the police which was found false after inquiry. In such cases section 182 is appropriate section, which is applicable while 211 comes into play when a false complaint or proceedings are initiated in the Court of law. Therefore, I find that the charge against the applicant could be only under section 182, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present case, in all fours is akin to the reported case of Haji Muhammad v. Noor Hussain Alwani and others. Therefore, the present complaint signed by the S.H.O. Is not proper compliance of section 195, Cr.P.C., as the S.H.O., was not the person concerned. The complaint could have been filed either by the S.P. Or S.D.P.O. Under these circumstances, 'it is held that cognizance of the proceedings against the present applicant in the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M., Shahdadkot, has not been taken legally. However, it is observed that prosecution is not barred from filing a fresh complaint properly observing the provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C., meaning thereby that the complaint should be signed by a concerned person, which is the S.P., S.D.P.O. Or any officer to whom they are subordinate as has been held in the reported case of Haji Muhammad v. Noor Hussain Alwani. In fact the two Courts below should have dismissed the complaint for non-compliance of section 195, Cr.P.C. Allowing the prosecution to file a proper complaint which was not done, by the trial Court as well as by the first Appellate Court. In this view of mine, I am supported by the case of Nasim Akhtar Sufi v. The State 1990 PCr.LT 336.
4. Therefore, I hereby order that by this order under the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the complaint against the applicant may be considered as having been dismissed for non- compliance of section 195, Cr.P.C., while the prosecution is at liberty to file a fresh complaint signed by the concerned Police Officer as observed above.
5. With the above observations, this criminal miscellaneous application is allowed.