| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 5474 2025 SLD 5474 = 2025 PCRLJ 1963 |
Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench
Writ Petition No. 1243-M of 2023, decided on 28th October, 2024.
Before S M Attique Shah and Muhammad Naeem Anwar, JJ
Muhammad Nabi for Petitioners. Haq Nawaz Khan, A.A.G for official
Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1243-M of 2023, decided on 28th October, 2024.
Before S M Attique Shah and Muhammad Naeem Anwar, JJ
Muhammad Nabi for Petitioners. Haq Nawaz Khan, A.A.G for official
Respondents.
SHER ZAMAN and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
The STATE through Additional Advocate General and others---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 145,154,155,561A
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 188
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 561-A & 154---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 188---Act of disobeying a lawfully promulgated order from a public servant---Quashing of FIR---Scope--Petitioner made construction in a property, which was attached in terms of S.145,Cr.P.C., by the Executive Magistrate, thus the impugned FIR was lodged--It was indisputable that after acceptance of the criminal revision petition by the Sessions Court on 02.11.2016, neither the order of attachment was in field nor the main proceedings under S.145,Cr.P.C., were pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for further process in terms of apprehension of breach of peace, whereas, the lodging of the FIR against the petitioners had its roots in the proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C., and alleged violation thereof, which had been scrambled down and admittedly the order of termination of proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C., had not been questioned or remained the subject matter of proceedings at any forum after the decision by the Revisional Court dated 02.11.2016---Thus, it appeared that the non-existence of dispute about breach of peace was accepted by petitioners and even by the State as none of them had challenged the order of termination of the proceedings---When the basic/initial order, on the basis of which, the criminal case bearing FIR No. 99 dated 22.05.2014 was registered against the petitioners, was no more in field then the entire superstructure shall fall on ground---Court shall not take cognizance of the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants of any offence punishable under Ss.172 to 188, P.P.C, except on the complaint in writing of public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he was subordinate---In the instant matter, irrespective of passing of an order of attachment of property, which though was later on set aside by the revisional Court, did not provide any justification to respondent No.2 or any other public servant to get registered FIR and that too under S.188, P.P.C, which in ScheduleII of Cr.P.C., had been categorized as a non-cognizable offence---In noncognizable offences no FIR could be lodged except as ordained…