' The present application for quashment of proceedings under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has been filed by applicant Sakhar Din son of Anwardin by caste Nohri in Criminal Proceedings No,2 of 1995 of Police Station Chachro, pending trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate and F.C.M., Mithi under section 211, P.P.C.
2. The facts of the case according to complaint lodged by A.S.-I. Ali Bux Jarwar of Police Station Kheesar, Taluka Chachro are as under:-- "Sir, it is submitted that the above accused is residing within the local limits of this honourable Court. He had on 17-4-1994 lodged F.I.R. Before Head Constable Allauddin of Police Post Tar Ahmed under section 379, P.P.C. Read with section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, and had nominated Roshan son of Muhammad, (2) Siddik son of Amin Nohri, resident of Keetari to be culprits of theft of his two cows. The Head Constable Allauddin of Police Post Tar Ahmed after registering the crime, investigated the case and inquired about it from witnesses Jamil son of Hassan and Kabir son of Saleh. They did not support him and told the police that Sakhardin had requested them to give evidence against the accused nominated in such F.I.R. As they had enmity with him. The witnesses refused to give evidence of theft. The police examined other witnesses by name Hashim son of Pahar, (2) Murad son of Jan Muhammad who also testified with regard to false charge. The Head Constable then referred the case to the S.H.O. Who recommended B-Summary and then filed the present proceedings under section 211, P.P.C."
3. On receiving the aforesaid complaint learned Judicial Magistrate and F.C.M., Mithi took the cognizance of the matter and issued bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,10,000 against the applicant.
4. I have heard Mr. Hemraj I. Karmani learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Khanzada learned counsel for State.
' The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that present complaint filed by complainant A.S.-I. Ali Bux Jarwar as A.S.-I.P. Of Police Station, Kheesar is in contravention of section 195(b), Cr.P.C.
He has further contended that applicant also filed direct complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate and F.C.M., Mithi who brought the same on file and issued process against the accused shown in the F.I.R. Lodged by applicant, therefore, initiation of the proceedings under section 211, P.P.C. Are bad in law. He has relied on Muhammad Murad v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 1097 and an unreported judgment of this Court in Dhano v. The State Criminal Revision Petition No,31 of 1990.
5. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Khanzada learned counsel for State has frankly conceded to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and has stated that quashment of proceedings will meet the ends of justice.
6. I have heard the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the State Counsel. I have also gone through the record and case-law quoted by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. Section 195(b), Cr.P.C. Is reproduced below:--
(b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code namely, sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate; or"
8. It is, thus, crystal clear from the plain reading of section 195(b), Cr.P.C. That the case under section 211, P.P.C. Can only be filed by a Court or by a Court superior to it and police, under no circumstances, can file complaint. The present applicant who had lodged the F.I.R. Vide Crime No,21 of 1994 at Police Station Chachro when found that the investigation is not carried on properly, he filed a direct complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate and F.C.M., Mithi who issued process against the persons shown as accused in the F.I.R. Lodged by him. The order of the Judicial Magistrate, Mithi is reproduced below:-- ' Perused the contents of direct complaint and statement of complainant as well as the statements of his witnesses and found that a prima facie case under section 379, P.P.C. Read with 14, E.H.O. Is made out. Issue B.Ws. To the accused in the sum of Rs,10, 000 each and register the case...."
9. Thus, it is yet to be determined as to whether the information given by the applicant to police was false one or not as the matter is sub judice before the Court.
10. I also find that before the proposed action of initiating proceedings under section 211, P.P.C. No show-cause notice was issued to the applicant which is a necessary requirement of law and in this context I am fortified by the authority reported in Muhammad Murad v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 1097 and unreported judgment of this Court in Dhano v. The State Criminal Revision Petition No,31 of 1990.
11. Under the circumstances and reasons recorded supra, continuance of the proceedings against the applicant is abuse of the process of the Court and is quashed accordingly.