GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION UMARKOT
This criminal miscellaneous application arises from the refusal of the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register an F.I.R. regarding an alleged illegal raid conducted on the applicant's office. The applicant initially sought relief from the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which was declined on the premise that the raid was lawful and did not constitute a cognizable offence. The core legal question was whether the police are obligated to register an F.I.R. when a cognizable offence is alleged, and whether the accused is entitled to notice during such proceedings. The Court held that the registration of an F.I.R. does not grant an automatic license to arrest, but rather initiates an investigation. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that prior notice to the proposed accused is unnecessary when seeking the registration of an F.I.R. or filing a petition regarding non-compliance with Section 154. Consequently, the Court directed the S.H.O. to record the applicant's statement and register an F.I.R. if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
- Is prior notice to the proposed accused necessary when filing a petition for the registration of an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the registration of an F.I.R. automatically authorize the police to make arrests?
- What is the duty of the S.H.O. when a complaint alleging a cognizable offence is presented?
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. FAISAL ARAB, J.--- Grievance of the applicant is that the applicant in the first instance approached the S.H.O. Concerned to lodge F.I.R., but was refused. Thereafter he approached the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace by moving application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. For seeking direction to the S.H.O. Concerned to lodge the F.I.R. But the same was also declined on the ground that the proposed accused had conducted a lawful raid on the office of applicant, which cannot be said to be a cognizable offence. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicant has filed the present application.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant states that the raid was conducted by the proposed accused in his absence and the acts committed by the raiding party during raid, itself constitute a criminal offence. Learned counsel states that during the raid, the proposed accused committed a cognizable offence and the remedy by making complaint under section 154, Cr.P.C. Cannot be deprived to the applicant if a cognizable offence is made out.
3. Needless to mention that lodging of report by itself does not amount to give a license to the police to make arrests, however, after investigation into the allegation if sufficient material comes out only then the police can proceed in accordance with law.
4. I find that though the accused persons were party in the Court of Sessions Judge Umerkot, they have not been impleaded in the present application. Mr. Madad Ali Shah learned counsel for the petitioner states that accused persons cannot claim notice, when allegations of crime are being reported against them. Law does not provide that notice should be given to the accused persons before the complaint is lodged under section 154, Cr.P.C. He relied upon the case of Islamuddin v.
5. P.O.
6. Sindh and others 1995 M LD 372, wherein it has been held that neither at the time of registration of F.I.R. Prior notice is necessary nor such notice is necessary when a petition is filed complaining of noncompliance of the mandate given in section 154, Cr.P.C. Similar view was taken in the case of Mst. Bhaitan v. The State and 3 others PLD 2005 Kar.
7. 621.
8. In these circumstances, the applicant shall approach the concerned police station and the S.H.O.
9. Who is present in Court, shall record his statement and upon his statement if a cognizable offence is made out he shall register the F.I.R.
10. ' With these directions present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ABID vs The STATE and anothers 2014 YLR 2152