ABIDA PARVEEN vs DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others
This constitutional petition arises from the failure of a Station House Officer (SHO) to comply with an order issued by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which directed the police to receive the petitioner's application and proceed in accordance with law. The core legal question concerns the mandatory nature of the police's duty to record a First Information Report (F.I.R.) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, versus the discretionary power to investigate under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the SHO acted illegally by bypassing the mandatory recording of the F.I.R. and proceeding directly to investigation procedures. The ratio established is that while an officer may exercise discretion regarding the investigation of a cognizable offence, they possess no such discretion regarding the initial recording of an F.I.R. upon receiving a complaint. Consequently, the Court directed the SHO to immediately record the F.I.R. in compliance with the Justice of Peace's order, emphasizing that the duty to register a cognizable offence is a statutory obligation that cannot be conflated with investigative discretion.
- Does a police officer have the discretion to refuse the recording of an F.I.R. when a complaint regarding a cognizable offence is presented?
- Is the procedure for recording an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 distinct from the investigative procedure under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a police officer bypass the mandatory recording of an F.I.R. by proceeding directly to investigation steps?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Wazirabad, vide order dated 21-7-2011 had directed the SHO of the police station to receive the application of the present petitioner and proceed with in accordance with law. The SHO of the police station instead of recording the version of the petitioner under section 154, Cr.P.C. Proceeded to take steps under section 157, Cr.P.C. The petitioner prays through the instant constitutional petition for the implementation of the order of the learned Justice of Peace dated 21-7-2011.
2. Parties heard and record perused.
3. The learned Justice of Peace, Wazirabad had directed the SHO of the police station to receive the application of the petitioner and to proceed with it in accordance with law. The SHO was bound to record the statement of the petitioner under section 154, Cr.P.C. And then to take further proceedings under the relevant provisions of law. The SHO instead of recording the statement of the petitioner under section 154, Cr.P.C. Has straightaway proceeded to take proceedings under section 157, Cr.P.C. Which are illegal. Sections 154 and 157, Cr.P.C. Deal with different contingencies.
The former provides for recording of F.I.R. At the instance of complainant while section 157, Cr.P.C.
Deals with the procedure for investigation of cognizable offence. The later provisions leaves it to the judgment of the police to refuse to investigate in certain cases but this power should not be confused with his initial responsibility to record the F.I.R. The SHO has no choice but to record the F.I.R. Although, he has discretion in making investigation. In this connection, the cases of Lal Din v.
SHO and others (1997 M LD 246), Tariq Siddique Khokhar v. AS.J and others (PLD 2006 Lahore 507) and Haji Muhammad Khan v. Ch. Khizer Hayat (PLD 1997 Lahore 424) may be referred. Since the order passed by the learned Justice of Peace has not been implemented by the SHO of the police station in letter and spirit, as such, he is directed to record the F.I.R. In compliance with order of learned Justice of Peace and send a copy of the same to this court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this court. The petition in had disposed of in the above terms.