ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus THE STATE

1. The short point on which this revision application must succeed is that whereas learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Civil Lines, Karachi took action against the petitioner on Police report dated 3‑5‑1976 under section 110, Cr. P. C. on 28‑5‑1976 and fixed the hearing of the case for 25‑6‑1976, ho did not make any order under section 112, Cr. P. C. until the petitioner appeared in Court on 25‑6‑1976. Mr. S. Nasiruddin also complains that the Police report, even if it be true, doer not attract the mischief of section 110, Cr. P. C. it at best may be construed as being one under section 107, Cr. P. C. an reties upon the decisions in Abdul Qadir and others v. The State (1976 P Cr. L J 742), Mehar Khan v. The State (1975 P Cr. L J 257) and Noor Mohammed alias Noorul v. The State (1975 P Cr. L J 1025).

2. Mr. Mohammad Ramzan Qureshi learned counsel appearing for the State, very frankly conceded to the legal points raised on behalf of the petitioner and be does not, therefore, support the impugned order passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Civil Lines, Karachi.

3. The position in law is clear that it is only after the Magistrate makes an order under section 112, Cr. P. C., that he can proceed further on the report or complaint under section 107, 108 109 or 110, Cr. P. C., and since the provisions of section 117, Cr. P. C. have been hold to be mandatory a nature, and not merely directory, their disregard is fatal to the proceeding set up against the petitioner.

4. On this ground alone, apart frost the other points raised by Mr. S. Nasiruddin, this application must succeed and is, therefore, allowed, with the result that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by tae Sub- Divisional Magistrate Civil Lines, Karachi under section 110, Cr. P. C, in respect of which he passed order dated 25‑6‑1976 under section 112, Cr. P. C.

5. Proceeding quashed.