' SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN, J.--- The petitioners Muhammad Irfan and another have filed this Constitutional petition whereby they have called in question the legality and correctness of the orders, dated 10-8-1996 and 25-9-1996 passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively.
2. The epitomised background of the instant matter is that on 1-3-1995 respondent No,5 lodged a report against the petitioners which was recorded in daily diary No,27 in Police Station Gomal University which was described by the petitioners as a counter-blast of case F.I.R. No,38 registered against respondent No,5 alongwith his relatives under sections 324/427/148/149, P.P.C. On 10-6- 1996 respondent No,5 filed a private complaint under sections 452/354/500/506/324 read with section 34, P.P.C. In the Court of respondent No,2 against the petitioners making the earstwhile daily diary report dated 1-3-1995 as basis for such complaint. The said complaint was marked to the S.H.O. Police Station Gomal University by respondent No,2 on 10-8-1996 for inquiry and report. The concerned S.H.O., i.e, respondent No,4, entrusted the inquiry to Aslam Khan A.S.-I. Who prepared a report which was forwarded by respondent No,4 to the prosecution branch on 4-9-1996. The said report forwarded by respondent No,4 was further forwarded to respondent No,3, i.e, Civil Judge- II/M.I.C., D.I. Khan. On receiving such report by respondent No,3, he issued directions to S.H.O. Gomal University D.I. Khan to register a case against the culprits vide his order, dated 25-9-1996. For proper understanding the said order is reproduced as below:- ' "The report of local police reveals that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused Irfan and Muhammad Jan, therefore, S.H.O., Gomal University, D.I. Khan is directed to register a case against the culprits under the relevant sections of law mentioned in final report by today.
(Sd.) C.J.II/M.I.C., D.I. Khan 25-9-1996"
' Resultantly, respondent No,4 registered a criminal case against the petitioners on 25-9-1996 under sections 452/353/500/505 read with section 34, P.P.C.
3. The petitioners are mainly aggrieved of the order, dated 25-9-1996 whereby respondent No,3 directed respondent No,4 to register a case against the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently contended that the order, dated 25-9-1996 passed by respondent No,3 is manifestly in violation of the relevant law and is thus, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. The learned counsel contended that when the complaint was filed before respondent No,2, he took cognizance of the matter under section 202, Cr.P.C. And directed an inquiry to be made by respondent No,4 as is required under subsection
(1) of section 202, Cr.P.C. He further contended that after the carrying out an inquiry by the police when the matter was sent back to respondent No,3 he was under the law required to have either dismissed the complaint under section 203, Cr.P.C. Or he was required to have proceeded under section 204 thereof. For the sake of convenience section 204, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced below:-- "204. Issue of process.--- (1) If in the opinion of a Court taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceedings, and the case appears to be one in which, according to the fourth column of the Second Schedule, a summons should issue in the first instance, it shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused. If the case appears to be one in which according to that column, a warrant should issue in the first instance, it may issue a warrant, or if it thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought' or to appear at a certain time before such Court or if it has no jurisdiction itself some other Court having jurisdiction.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 90.
(3) When by any law for the time being in force any process fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Court may dismiss the complaint."
5. While taking forward his arguments, the learned counsel contended that in view of section 204, (ibid), respondent No,3 was bound to have proceeded under the aforementioned provisions of law and he was not justified to issue directions to the police for registration of the case and moreso when initially the police had not registered the case and the matter was incorporated in the daily diary only. By directing the police to register a case against the petitioners, respondent No,3 had exceeded his jurisdiction and, as such, his order, dated 25-9-1996 is without lawful authority and the ensuing registration of the case is also violative of the law and is liable to be quashed.
6. The learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State has demonstrated his fairness and stated that respondent No,3 was not within his powers to issue any order to respondent No,4 for registration of the case, rather he was under the law required to have proceeded under section 204, Cr.P.C. And the other relevant provisions for the purposes of carrying further proceedings relating to the private complaint.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also taken into account the fair concession of the learned Assistant Advocate-General. We are also of the view that Chapters XVII and XVIII of the Cr.P.C. Are meant for filing of and proceeding with the complaint to the Magistrate and these Chapters provide complete mechanism and procedure to deal with the private complaint. The Magistrate after taking cognizance of the matter in the form of private complaint was not supposed to go beyond the procedure laid down by the Legislature as going beyond it would amount to make the legislation redundant and superfluous. In the instant case too, respondent No,3 was required to have proceeded with the complaint in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Cr.P.C. And was not authorized to issue directions to the police for registration of the case.
8. In view of the above legal and factual position, we are of the firm view that the order, dated 25- 9-1996 directing the S.H.O., i.e, respondent No,4, to register a case against the petitioners is without lawful authority and, as such, the F.I.R. Registered as a result of the said order is also nullity in the eyes of law. We, therefore, accept this writ petition, set aside the impugned orders mentioned above and quash the ensuing F.I.R. The case is remanded to the trial. Court with the direction to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law and decide the same on merits.