MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs SAEED AHMED NAASIR, XEN MEPCO BHAWALAPUR, and otherss
This criminal original petition was filed seeking contempt proceedings against respondents for allegedly disobeying a status quo order issued by the High Court in a civil revision. The petitioner alleged that the respondents violated the stay order dated 23-6-2000. The Court observed that the main civil revision had been disposed of, causing the interim status quo order to merge into the final judgment. Regarding the contempt allegation, the Court held that contempt proceedings are not mandatory unless the contemnor acted recklessly with a patent motive to disrespect the Court's authority. Following the principle of 'Afw' (forgiveness) recognized in Muslim Jurisprudence and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings. Additionally, the Court addressed a separate criminal case (F.I.R. No. 180 of 2000) registered against the petitioner under Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. It held that the trial court must determine the legality of the case, noting that cognizance of such an offense requires a formal complaint by the concerned public servant under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is the Court bound to initiate contempt proceedings in every instance of alleged disobedience of a court order?
- Does a status quo order survive after the final disposal of the main civil revision?
- Can a court take cognizance of an offense under Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a formal complaint from the concerned public servant?
- What is the requirement for initiating proceedings for an offense under Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as per Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---Through this criminal original the petitioner seeks that respondents Nos. 1 to 6 be proceeded against for disobeying the status quo order issued by this Court in Civil Revision No,285 of 2000 on 23-6-2000. The respondents were summoned and they have filed their written reply. The file shows that the stay order was passed by this Court while admitting the main civil revision titled "Muhammad Yaqub v. X.E.N. (WAPDA),etc., arising out of an order passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar, dated 24-4-2000 whereby petitioner's applications for temporary injunction was dismissed and the order, dated 10-6-2000 passed by learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar whereby petitioner's appeal against the above-mentioned order of the Trial Court, was also dismissed. However, the main civil revision was later on finally disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to complete the trial of the said suit on or before 28- 5-2005, meaning thereby that status quo order issued by this Court on 23-6-2000 has merged in the final order, dated 22-12-2004, which shows that the applicant was not serious in getting the respondents punished for the alleged disobedience. However, as this criminal original was still pending and the respondents were not turning up despite notices by the Court, hence, this Court on 22-12-2004 issues their bailable warrants of arrest, resultantly in compliance with the said warrants all the respondents entered appearance on 11-1-2005 and sought adjournment for submission of their reply. The requisite reply has been submitted. A perusal of the reply indicates that the said order, dated 23-6-2000 was not disobeyed; rather the said respondents were not aware of the passage of the stay order. Even otherwise, in every case this Court is not bound to start contempt proceedings unless, it is shown that the alleged contemnor acted recklessly and with the patent motive of showing disrespect to the authority of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "Shah Alam Khan v. Vice-Chancellor, Agriculture University, Peshawar"
(PLD 1993 Supreme Court 297) also took the same view and instead of starting such proceedings, preferred to adopt the principle of "Afw" as recognized by Muslim Jurisprudence. Keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above citation, I am inclined to hold that no further action is called for in this petition. The same is accordingly disposed of as such.
2. Lastly it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that a criminal case F.I.R. No,180 of 2000, dated 17-8-2000 under section 186, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Bahawalnagar was also got registered against the petitioner and other male as well as female members of his family and they are being dragged in the said criminal case. In the facts as mentioned in the F.I.R. I do not feel how the Courtcan take cognizance of the offence under section 186, P.P.C. Without a proper complaint having been filed by the concerned public servant to the Court itself as ordained by section 195, Cr.P.C. And not otherwise. Moreover, the contents of the F.I.R. Do not cover the ingredients of section 186, P.P.C. The learned Trial Court before proceedings to try the said case, is directed to determine the legality of the said case at the touchstone of section 194, Cr.P.C. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Court through the learned High Court Judge, Bahawalpur who will, transmit the same after locating the concerned Court seized with the trial of the said case. This petition is disposed of accordingly.