MUHAMMAD YASIN vs S.S.P. and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a petition seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered against the petitioner, a Union Council Secretary. The petitioner alleged that as a public servant, only the Anti-Corruption Establishment possessed the jurisdiction to register and investigate the criminal case, rendering the police-registered F.I.R. illegal. The Supreme Court addressed whether the registration of an F.I.R. by the police against a public servant for alleged cognizable offences, specifically under the Pakistan Penal Code, is invalid due to the existence of the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the police are authorized under the Code of Criminal Procedure to record an F.I.R. upon receiving information of a cognizable offence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that even if the Anti-Corruption Establishment were the appropriate forum, the F.I.R. remains protected under established legal precedent. The key principle laid down is that the registration of an F.I.R. by the police for a cognizable offence is valid under the Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of the petitioner's status as a public servant.
- Does the status of an accused as a public servant preclude the police from registering an F.I.R. for a cognizable offence?
- Is an F.I.R. registered by the police against a public servant invalid if the Anti-Corruption Establishment is the designated investigating agency?
- Does Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 authorize a police officer to record an F.I.R. for a cognizable offence regardless of the accused's employment status?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 466, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---One Ch. Khurshid Hussain informed the S.S.P. Of Faisalabad inter- alia, that his daughter Mst. Samina was married to one Kamal-ud-din on 28-9-1995 who went away to London on 1-7-1999, on a visit visa; that the said Kamal-ud-din contracted a second marriage in England; that the applicant's daughter informed the Home Secretary of U.K. About the earlier marriage of the said Kamal-ud-din with her; that in order to defend himself against any possible action in U.K., the said Kamal-ud-din prepared a forged divorce notice dated 2-8-1997 with the connivance of one Yasin who was the Secretary of the concerned Union Council and others and a fake certificate of divorce dated 28-7-2000 was also prepared. It was alleged that in the circumstances the said Kamal-ud-din, Yasin and others had committed offences punishable under sections 420/466/468/471/148/149 of the P.P.C. Finding this application to be an information relating to the commission of cognizable offences, the said S.S.P. Directed the concerned S.H.O. To record an F.I.R. And to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Consequently an F.I.R. Bearing No,109 was registered at Police Station Sargodha Road, Faisalabad on 8-2-2002.
2. Muhammad Yasin accused approached the Lahore High Court with Writ Petition No,5370 of 2002 praying for the quashment of the said F.I.R. Essentially on the ground that since the said Yasin accused/petitioner was a public servant being the Secretary of the concerned Union Council, therefore, it was only the Anti-Corruption A Establishment which was competent to register a criminal case and to investigate the same and that the impugned F.I.R. Was an F.I.R. Which was illegal and of no legal effect. Through an order dated 3-4-2002 a learned Single Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed the said petition. Hence this petition.
3. It is not deniable that the provisions of section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Authorized an officer incharge of a police station to record an F.I.R. If information was conveyed to him which disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. It is also not denied that at least the offence punishable under section 420 of the P.P.C. Was one such cognizable offence. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments, that the F.I.R. In the present case could be registered only by the A.C.E. Even then the F.I.R. In question is protected through the law declared bythis Court in the case 'State v. Bashir and others' PLD 1997 SC 408. In this view of the matter no exception could be taken to the impugned order passed by the Lahore High Court. This petition is therefore dismissed. .
Cited by 1 case
- Mian Haroon Riaz Lucky and another vs The State and others 2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 250, 2021 SCMR 56