' This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For quashing the proceedings instituted by the police under section 182, P. P. C. Against the petitioner In the Court of S. D. M., Liaquatabad under the following circumstances.
2. Petitioner Haji Muhammad All had joined one Syed Sabir Ahmad, the respondent, in partnership business of poultry Farming. The petitioner had invested about Rs, 2,00,000 in that business. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent contrary to the agreed arrangement had withdrawn amounts from the bank account of the firm under forged signature of the petitioner. The petitioner then sent applications to the Governor, the D. I. G., Crime Branch etc., alleging the above facts. This written report was forwarded to S. H.
0., Model Colony Police Station who registered the case for offence under sections 406, 420 and 506, P. P. C. The case was investigated by the Crime Branch and Sub-Inspector, Crime Branch after due investigation forwarded his report that the signatures on the cheques were genuine and the allegations of the complainant were false. The respondent who had been arrested was accordingly released. A final report dated 1-2-1974 was submitted in the Court of S. D. M. On 19-4-1975 which was accepted by the S. D. M. Thereafter the complaint under section 182, P. P. C. Was filed by S. I.
Zahoor Ali of the Crime Branch in the court of S. D. M., Liaquatabad, Karachi.
2-A. Meanwhile petitioner Haji Muhammad Ali filed a direct complaint for offences under sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 506, P. P. C. Against the petitioner, his wife and one Shamsuddin Ahmed on 31-5-1975 in Court of A. D. M. Malir, Karachi. It was forwarded to S. D. M., Malir on 5-4-1975 The learned S. D. M. Recorded the statements of the witnesses produced by the complainant.
Meanwhile a report was received from the Crime Branch that no case had been made out against the accused. The S. D. M. However registered the complaint and issued process for offence under section 46: P. P. C. On 26-5-1975.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Hazratjee on behalf of the petitioner that the original application was made to the Governor of Sind and he had forwarded the application to the D. I. G. That since the Governor was not a public servant the provisions of section 182, P. P. C. Could not be made applicable to this case. That the police had no doubt registered the F. I. R. But it was not under signature of the petitioner and the offence complained of had been changed by the police. The main argument of Mr. Hazratje is that in view of the direct complaint still pending in the Court of S. D. M. In respect of the same allegations it cannot be said that the allegations made in the applications were false or malicious. It has, on the other hand been argued by Mr. Warasat Hussain Khan that the police had submitted a final report which had been accepted by the S. D. M. On 19-2-
75. That the direct complaint for offence under section 182 had been filed on 24-6-1975 i,e,, after four months. That the complaint was not, therefore, maintainable after the S. D. M. Had granted the report. He has also argued that since the Governor forwarded the complaint to. The police and an F. I. R. Was registered on the basis of that complaint the complainant would be responsible for the consequences.
4. Thus the main objection in this case is that no action can be taken on the complaint under section 182, P. P. C. Because the trial of the accused on the basis of the direct complaint is still pending. This position was accepted by this Court in Ashfaq All v. The State (1). It was observed in that case as under : - "Mr. Makhdoom Sharif contended that as a direct complaint was still pending, it could not be said that the information given by the applicant to the police could be known or believed by him to be false. The second contention was that since the complaint had been filed, the prosecution against the applicant, if any, was to be on the complaint of the Court under section 211, P. P. C. And not under section 182, P. P. C. In that context he has referred to the case of Ramchand v. Emperor (30 Cr.
L J 399) Mr. Sarki appearing for the State very fairly concedes this position."
5. Similar view was taken in Lachmi Shaw v. Emperor (2). It was observed in that case that where upon police enquiry and report the complainant files a naraji petition before a Magistrate, it is not competent for the Magistrate to issue process against the complainant under sections 211 and 182 without dismissing the naraji petition. This was also the decision in AIR 1933 Cal. 614, in a similar matter.
6. The contention of the petitioner has all along been that the police have not investigated this case in an impartial manner. It was, therefore, that in spite of the police report being adverse, the learned S. D. M. Issued {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1975 Kar. 87 (2) AIR 1932 Cal. 383 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' process against the respondent on the basis of the direct complaint. An opportunity, therefore, ought to be allowed to the respondent to produce his evidence and establish the allegations made by him against the respondent. Before deciding that case it would not be proper for the same Court to proceed against the petitioner for offence under section 182, P. P. C. The proceedings under section 182, P. P. C. Are accordingly stayed and they may be disposed of after the case against the respondent pending before the learned K.D. M. Is decided.
7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.