FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION BABERLOI, DISTRICT KHAIRPUR
This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the applicant seeking the registration of an F.I.R. against the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) for failing to comply with a previous court order and for violating statutory duties under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether the police officer was justified in refusing to register an F.I.R. based on his own assessment of the information's veracity, and whether his conduct warranted contempt proceedings. The Court held that the S.H.O. acted improperly by assuming the role of a judge or witness rather than performing his mandatory duty under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court emphasized that if a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police must register the F.I.R. and investigate, rather than unilaterally deciding the information is false. The principle laid down is that police officers cannot evade their statutory obligation to record statements and register F.I.R.s in cognizable cases based on personal suspicion or enmity between parties; accountability for false information lies in the post-investigation stage, not in the refusal to register the initial report.
- Is a Station House Officer authorized to refuse the registration of an F.I.R. based on a personal belief that the information provided is false?
- Does the police officer have the authority to act as a judge regarding the veracity of a complaint before registering an F.I.R. for a cognizable offence?
- What is the appropriate procedure for a police officer when information regarding a cognizable offence is received?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Police Order 2002
- Section 24.4, Police Rules
ORDER
1. ' NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.---This Criminal. Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C, filed by Fazal Muhammad on 26-10-2009, was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2- 7-2010, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-- "I have considered the submissions advanced at the bar, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the applicant as it is the right of every citizen if from the facts a cognizable offence is made out then statement should be incorporated in 154, Cr.P.C. And it is for the police to investigate the case and if the information found to be false and fictitious then law provides punishment for such submissions of false information. Consequently, respondent No,1 is directed to record the statement of the applicant, if any cognizable offence is made out his statement may be incorporated in section 154, Cr.P.C. Book. In case no offence at all made out he shall record his reasons in writing and supply copy to the applicant.
2. ' With the above observation this application is disposed of."
3. ' The applicant has now moved two applications. One M.A. No,2634 of 2010 with the prayer to register the F.I.R. Against the respondent No,1 as the respondent No .1/S.H.O. Police Station Baberloi has committed the offence under the provisions of Police Order, 2002 and violated the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. In his another application being M.A 2635 of 2010, the applicant has prayed to initiate the contempt proceedings against the alleged contemner named above and punish him according to law as he has violated the order of this Court dated 2-7-2010.
4. ' The respondent No,1 in response to the notice issued on above two applications has filed his statement in detail. The relevant Para No,7 of which is as under:-- "(7) That section 24.4. Of Police Rules provides that if the information or other intelligence relating to the alleged commission of a cognizable offence, is such that an-officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect that the alleged offence has not been committed, he shall enter the substance of the information or intelligence in the station diary and shall record his reasons for suspecting that the alleged offence has not been committed and shall also notify to the information, if any, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated."
5. ' The learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions has relied upon the cases reported in PLD 2005 SC 539 relevant page 552; 2010 PCr.LJ 982 and PLD 2005 Karachi 285.
6. ' During the course of arguments, it has been admitted by learned counsel for the parties that there is long enmity between the parties and therefore, the parties have been filing cases against each other. However, the respondent No,1 being S.H.O. Of the concerned Police Station could not nevertheless, be allowed to violate the mandatory provisions of law i.e, Section 154, Cr.P.C. And he appears to have taken interest in the matter, just like a witness or party etc. And therefore, he lodged a N.C. Report instead of an F.I.R., concluding the case/report as false. Accordingly he appears to have escaped of his liability tixed under law.
7. ' Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present S.H.O. Police Station Baberloi is directed to record the fresh statement of the applicant in verbatim and in case cognizable offence is made out A from such statement, register F.I.R. Of the applicant in accordance with law. But in case such F.I.R., so registered, is found false during investigation, then action may be taken against the applicant/complainant in accordance with law. However, the present S.H.O. Police Station Baberloi shall not arrest any of the nominated accused unless he collect the tangible evidence. At the same time, the D.P.O. Khairpur is directed to conduct enquiry against respondent No,1/Pir Ali Shah, the then S.H.O. Police Station Baberloi and take action against him in accordance with law and compliance be sent to this court.
8. ' The listed applications stand disposed of in the above terms.