1. ' The applicant Kishore Kumar seeks abashment of proceedings in Sessions Case 'No,67 of 1995 pending against him in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Umerkot.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant has been charged under sections 120-B, 123-A and 526(2), P.P.C. On the averments that on 14-8-1995 at 5-30 p.m. He raised slogans against the integrity and security of Pakistan while in front of a gathering of small boys of a Primary School Umerkot, which was witnessed by police party being patrolled under S.H.O. Police Station Umerkot.
3. It is alleged that after raising slogans against the integrity of Pakistan and allegedly in favour of India he succeeded in slipping away. S.H.O. Umerkot without obtaining any sanction from the PrOvincial Government recorded F.I.R. In 154, Cr.P.C. Book and challaned the above named applicant/accused before a Court of law.
4. ' That soon after the arrest of the applicant/accused bail application was submitted in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Umerkot which was dismissed by his order, dated 16-8-1995. In the meantime challan was submitted in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Umerkot under sections 506-B, 123-A and 120-B.
5. ' A bail application was moved before this Court and this Court was pleased to grant bail on 31-8- 1995. Thereafter, this matter remained pending before the Sessions Judge, Umerkot. By an order, dated 3-1-1996 which was passed by this Court the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed till the disposal of the main application under section 561-A,' Cr.P.C.
6. ' According to the learned counsel for the applicant/accused the F.I.R. Is an absurdity in the eyes of law as no person especially belonging to a minority would confront a procession on the independence day and would shout slogans of "Pakistan Murdabad" and "Hindustan Zindabad" unless he was slightly balmy in the head. The sections quoted by the respectable police in the F.I.R.
7. Are 120-B, 123-A and 506-B, P.P.C. All these three sections cannot be by any remote possibility be relevant for the so-called offence that the alleged accused seems to have conimitted.
8. Furthermore, the learned counsel has pointed out that according to Chapter VI of P.P.C. Offence against State viz. 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 123-A, 123-B and 124, P.P.C. Are not cognizable according to 196, Cr:P.C. And no F.I.R. With regard to under any of the above sections can be registered under section 154, Cr.P.C. As only a direct complaint as defined under section 4-H of Cr.P.C. Can be made if no direct complaint has been made then it is a patent illegality and it cannot be cured under section 537, Cr.P.C. Or any other provisions of law. If an F.I.R. Is filed under the above circumstances then the same can be struck down and quashment allowed. There is a plethora of judgments on this aspect of law. The case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant is as follows:--
(1) Dost Muhammad v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 184,
(2) Qaisar Raza v. The State 1979 PCr.LJ 758,
(3) Moin Alam v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 1913,
(4) Mian Munir Ahnied v. The State 1985 SCM R 257,
(5) State v. Asif Ali Zardari 1995 SCMR 798,
(6) Ghulam Ali v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 507 and
(7) Muhammad Sadiq Umrani v. The State PLD 1993 Kar.
9. 735.
10. Section 506-B, P.P.C. And section 120-B, P.P.C. Are not applicable at all as the basic reading of the F.I.R. Shows that the person stood in front of the procession with a Lathi and when confronted by the police he immediately ran away. It is needless to state that his speed was such that he managed to outrun the upholders of law who were specially posted to patrol the city in a Government vehicle who yet could not catch hold of the gentleman concerned at that time. Once again if the F.I.R. Is to be believed. Then there was only an individual who shouted, slogans. Hence, there is no mention at all of any other person involved with the accused where after it could be stated that there is in effect a conspiracy being hatched against the State. The learned counsel for the accused has given detail and lengthy arguments and I must record my deep appreciation with the way he has assisted this Court.
11. ' On the other hand confronted by the arguments of the accused the learned counsel appearing for the State had nothing to add save and except that it was too early to apply for abashment of the proceedings and that the proceedings before the trial Court should have been allowed to continue. They have also gone on to argue that abashment proceedings directly to the High Court was not maintainable as there was provision under the law whereby such abashment proceedings could have been initiated before the trial Court. The case-law referred to above has also dwelt on this point of whether a person can come directly to the High Court, in a abashment proceedings without applying for the same before the trial Court.
12. In view of what is stated above I have no hesitancy in allowing the application under section 561-A and quashing the proceedings initiated before the trial Court. Order accordingly.