' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to examine the legality of the order passed by a learned Magistrate whereby case got registered by the appellant was cancelled.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant had got a case registered against Ghazil Shah and Muhammad Iqbal Noori, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 herein. During the proceedings, Ghazil Shah has since expired. The case got registered by the appellant was under sections 420, 406 468 and 471, P.P.C.
Regarding sale of a plot of land. The police after investigation submitted a discharge report which was allowed by a learned Magistrate on 12-6-1996 and a direction was given that proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Be initiated against the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order but without success. An Intra-Court Appeal filed by him before the High Court also failed vide judgment of a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 16-10-1997. The appellant appeared in person and argued the case at length. The contentions were vehemently controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. M.
Kowkab Iqbal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the record. The appellant, appearing in person, at the very outset pleaded mata fides of the police as well as of the Magistrate. He has drawn our attention to various documents on the file. After examination of the file, we have noticed that at page 28 of the paper book the learned Magistrate allowed the police to discharge the accused on the basis of a report which was submitted before him purportedly signed by Superintendent of Police (Crime) Islamabad on 6-5-1996. Strangely enough, Mr. Haq Nawaz Kayani, S.P. Islambad had retired already on 3-5-1996 vide notification at page 35 of the paper book. It is a mystery how he signed the document 3 days after his retirement, Similarly, we have noticed that the discharge order was passed on 12-6-1996 but strangely enough in the written statement filed by the respondents in civil suit with regard to the land in dispute, in its para. 9 at page 37 of the paper book, it reads as follows:-- "9. Para. No,9 is incorrect, Criminal case registered vide F.I.R. No,275 on the statement of plaintiff No,1 was subsequently cancelled and criminal proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Have been set at foot against plaintiff No, 1 ."
4. It is strange to note that written statement was prepared and typed on 2-6-1996 and filed on 3- 6-1996 and it mentions the order of learned Magistrate which was passed on 12-6-1996. This on the face of it, establishes the contention of the appellant. In these circumstances, we feel that without applying mind request of police for cancellation of case was accepted by the learned Magistrate for consideration extraneous to legal proceedings. Therefore, we accept this appeal, set aside the orders impugned and direct that challan be submitted in Court and thereafter proceedings be initiated in accordance with law.
5. At the request of learned counsel for the respondents, it is directed that the learned Magistrate shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made by this Court.