Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 575/Q of 1975, decided on 3^rd February 1976.

‑‑‑---Ss. 561‑A, 144 & 195‑‑Quashnocrt of proceedings‑Order under S. 144 promulgated by District Magistrate but complaint filed by Resident Magistrate for its violation‑Contention that complaint having beat filed by an authority riot empowered to do so under S. 195, Cr. P. C. Court could not take cognizance on such com plaint‑Held : Correct‑Proceedings quashed, in circumstances Penal Code (XLV ), S. 188-‑[Quashment of proceedings].

Irshad Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner.

M. Iqbal Chaudhary for the State.

The petitioners who claim to be the office‑ bearers of apolitical party have filed the present application for quashing cut proceedings started against them I, under section 188, P. P. C. They are alleged to have taken out a procession in Kot Adder in violation of an order under section 144, Cr. P. C. promulgated by the Distt. Magistrate. The case was registered on a com plaint lodged by the Resident Magistrate with Police Station, Kot Addu.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the order under section 144, Cr. P. C. had seen promulgated by the Distt. Magistrate, Muzaffargarh, whereas the complaint was lodged by the Resident Magistrate, no Court could take cognizance of that case in view of section 195, Cr. P. C. which reads as under:‑

"195‑‑(1) No Court shall take cognizance‑

(a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the P. P. C. except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.

Admittedly the order under section 144, Cr. P. C. had been promulgated by the Distt Magistrate whereas the complaint was filed by the Resident Magistrate. The words or some other public servant to whom be is subordi nate, in section 195 (1) P. P. C. moans that the complaint, should have been filed either by the Distt Magistrate who promulgated the order or by a Person to whom the Distt, Magistrate is subordinate. Undoubtedly the on Resident Magistrate is rather subordinate to the Distt. Magistrate Muzaf fargarlh. The Court concerned, therefore, should not have taken cognizance on the report of the Resident Magistrate.

3. The learned counsel for the State agreed that the Distt. Magistrate who passed the order under section 144, Cr. P. C. is not subordinate to the Resident Magistrate who lodged the report. The Court concerned, therefore, A should not have taken cognizance of the matter and the proceedings pending in that Court are thus an abuse of the process of Court. The proceedings under section 1813, P. P. C. pending in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) against the petitioners are, therefore, quashed.

Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.