Mst. SAJIDA alias ASMAT KIANI vs THE STATE and another

' KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.---Mst. Sajida alias Asmat Kiani, petitioner has invoked the inherent power of this Court under section 561-A, Cr .P.0 . For quashment of F.I.R No,68, dated 26-2-2004 under sections 468/471/420, P.P.C registered at Police Station New Town, Rawalpindi.

2. In her old manual National Identity Card, the date of birth of Mst. Sajida, petitioner-accused was recorded as 14.8-1947. She approached the NADRA for issuance of computerized National Identity Card with the date of birth as 12-4-1950. The computerized National Identity Card containing the date of birth as 12-4-1950 was issued in favour of the petitioner-accused. In the year 2000 one Mst.

Zahida Shaheen made an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Cantt. Rawalpindi against Mst. Sajida, accused with an allegation that the latter had changed her date of birth from 14-8-1947 to 12-4-1950 after having tampered with the computerized National Identity Card. The Distt. Registrar NADRA Satellite Town, Rawalpindi got registered the above mentioned case against Mst. Sajida, petitioner with an allegation that she obtained computerized National Identity Card with tampered date of birth in violation of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000. The case remained under investigation with different police officers, who formed conflicting opinions, sometime favourable to the petitioner-accused and some time against her. Ultimately, she was challaned to Court on the above said charge. She sought her acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Before the learned trial Court as well as before the Revisional Court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., but unsuccessfully. Hence, this petition.

3. A combined examination of the entire record would show that the petitioner accused did not tamper with the B computerized National Identity Card. The same is genuine and valid document.

This is a matter of record that in the old National Identity Card the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded as 14-8-1947 and in the computerized one her date of birth had been given as 12-4- 1950. The petitioner accused did not compel or force the NADRA to record her date of birth as 12-4- 1950. She simply approached NADRA for change of date of birth from 14-8-1947 to 1.2-4-1950. In case the petitioner had come forward with a baseless claim of change of date of birth, her request should have been turned down. For the sake of arguments, if it is admitted for a moment that it was not permissible under the law and the rules governing the subject to change date of birth even then there was no occasion for NADRA to blame the petitioner-accused for the change of date of birth as the change was made by the officials of the NADRA and not by the accused herself.

Had the petitioner-accused tampered with the computerized N.I.C. Or had she herself changed the date of birth from 14-8-1947 to 12-4-1950 then she should have been held responsible and liable for the offence. Although, it is not the case of NADRA, even then if it is presumed that she had joined hands with some officer/official of NADRA in getting a computerized National Identity Card with wrong date of birth, then the concerned responsible officer should also have been reported with the F.I.A. At the cost of repetition, it is noteworthy that NADRA changed the date of birth from 14-8- 1947 to 12-4-1950. Instead of initiating action against the officer or official of NADRA, who allowed the request of the accused about the change of date, the NADRA got registered a criminal case against the petitioner with a baseless allegation that the computerized N.I.C. Had been tampered with. I must say once again that the same had not been tampered with.

4. The petitioner accused neither prepared any fake document nor she tampered with any genuine document. Her request for change of date of birth before NADRA was allowed and computerized N.I.C. Containing the date of birth as 12-4-1950 had been issued. I have gone through the entire record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Law Officer and could not understand as to what were the reasons and motive which persuaded the Distt. Registrar NADRA to get registered a baseless case against the petitioner against the admitted position of record. During the course of arguments, the learned Law Officer despite seeking instructions from Mushtaq Ahmad Malik Asstt. Director NADRA could not defend registration of the case. The most shocking aspect of the matter is that the concerned officer of NADRA issued, computerized National Identity Card in favour of the petitioner- accused containing the date of birth as 12-4-1950 and then prosecuted her on a criminal charge with the baseless allegation that she had tampered with the date of birth. The petitioner lady has been dragged in frivolous litigation for many years unnecessarily. She faced the agony of investigation for years before different Investigating Officers.

In the circumstances, the proceedings in the case pending against her before the learned trial Court cannot be allowed to continue, as it would amount to abuse of process of Court. This is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court as the petitioner lady has been wronged for no fault on her part.

5. I, therefore, allow this petition and quash the proceedings in the impugned F.I.R. Resultantly, she stands absolved of the charge with an observation that she would be at liberty to prosecute the Distt. Registrar NADRA on account of her malicious prosecution.