MALIK ZAHID vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of a grievance where information regarding a cognizable offence reported by the petitioner was recorded in the daily diary instead of registering a First Information Report (FIR) under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner challenged the order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (Sessions Judge) which permitted the police officer to conduct an inquiry before registering the case. The core legal question was whether an inquiry can precede the registration of an FIR upon receiving information of a cognizable offence. The Peshawar High Court held that investigation or inquiry cannot be conducted before the registration of an explicit FIR, and it is the bounden duty of the police station incharge to register the FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence. The Court laid down that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace must direct the registration of an FIR rather than allowing preliminary inquiries, thereby setting aside the impugned order and ordering the registration and subsequent investigation of the case.
- Is it mandatory for a police officer to register an FIR upon receiving information of a cognizable offence?
- Can a police officer conduct an inquiry or investigation before the registration of an FIR?
- What are the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace regarding the issuance of directions for the registration of an FIR?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 155, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-A(6)(i), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 170, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SALIM KHAN, J.---The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, on the complaint of the petitioner, Malik Zahid son of Malik Muhammad Irfan, a cognizable offence was reported to the S.H.O. But the report was recorded on Mad No.18 in the Daily Diary dated 14-11-2006, and no F.I.R.
Was recorded according to the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C., for which investigation was to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of section 156 of the same Code. He further contended that the information was not regarding a non-cognizable offence and the provisions of section 155 of the said Code were not applicable. It was also argued by him that the provisions of section 157, Cr.P.C. Were not attracted as there was no question of suspicion on information, rather it was a direct information by an aggrieved person.
2. The learned counsel contended that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (Sessions Judge, Mansehra) was expected to issue appropriate direction for recording/ registration of F.I.R. Of the cognizable offence when complaint was made to him, but he allowed the concerned S.H.O. a free hand and to first inquire and then to act accordingly.
3. The learned D.A.-G. For the State is of the view that the directions of the learned Sessions Judge as Ex-Officio Justice of Peace were proper as it was not yet confirmed whether the offence had been committed actually or not.
4. Investigation is not to be conducted before registration of the case. It is bounden duty of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station to either register, or cause to be registered, the F.I.R. As and when written or oral information is received by him regarding commission of a cognizable offence.
The learned Justice of Peace was expected to direct the concerned Incharge of Police Station to register the F.I.R. A which he has not directed.
5. I, therefore, hold that the original order of the learned Justice of Peace is not only evasive but is not covered by the provisions of section 22-A(6)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. I, therefore, order the quashment of the said order and direct the concerned Officer Incharge of the police station to register the F.I.R., to investigate the case at the information given by the petitioner, and, after completing investigation, take into consideration the provisions of sections 169, 170 and 173 of the said Code. The Officer Incharge of police station will be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the complainant if it is proved that the complaint was frivolous and false. I .