MUHAMMAD HANIF vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION NAUSHEHRO

ORDER

1. ' NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,S- 363 of 2012.

2. ' Brief facts leading to the filing of instant application are that an application under section 22-A(6)

3. (J), Cr.P.C, was moved by one Muhammad Haneef Gabale in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Naushero Feroze alleging therein that his brother Abdul Rasheed is serving as Operator in F.W.O. He had received salary of three months and was coming from. Saeedabad to the Ghotki. On 9-6-2012 at 2-00 p.m. Abdul Rasheed was sitting at the hotel of Naushero Feroze for taking the meals. In the meanwhile, SHO Lal Bux Dahar and H.C. All Akbar appeared at Hotel and conducted search of Abdul Rasheed and snatched cash of Rs,65,000, ring of gold and Cell phone and took him to the Police Station Mithiani, where he was detained in police lockup. It is alleged that Abdul Rasheed gave information of the incident to his brother and he came to the police lockup where he enquired from SHO Lal Bux about the detention of his brother Abdul Rasheed. It is alleged that SHO Lal Bux Dahar of Police Station Mithiani informed to the applicant that his brother had refused to provide machinery to the local Zamindar, as such he has registered 'a case under section 13(d) A.O. Against him and SHO demanded cash of Rs,50,000 for releasing his brother. It is alleged that SHO also refused to lodge the F.I.R. And complainant returned back and went to the DSP Naushehro Feroze but he was not present written application against the SHQ was submitted but without any result finding no other way, above application was submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for seeking directions to the concerned SHO for registration of the F.I.R. Application was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Naushehro Feroze the same was rejected by order dated 18-6- 2012. Thereafter, applicant Muhammad. Haneef has approached to this Court.

4. ' Mr. Achar Khan Gabole learned Advocate for the applicant has contended that SHO was bound to register F.I.R. Under section 154, Cr.P.C. And he has no power to refuse the same if from the information cognizable offence is made out. It is immaterial whether information is false or correct.

5. He has argued that after snatching the money from the brother of the applicant case under section 13(d),' A.O. Was registered and it was the mala fide on the part of the S.H.O. He has further submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Naushehro Feroze has not exercised jurisdiction judiciously and touched the minor details and deeper appreciation at initial stage was not warranted in law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case law as reported in the case of Mst. Bhaitan v. The State and 3 others (PLD 2005 Karachi 621), Muhammad Bashir v. S.H.O. Okara Cantt. And others (PLD 2007 SC 539) and Muhammad Shafiq and 2 others v.

6. Secretary to Government of Punjab and 2 others (2012 M LD 737).

7. ' Mr. Mohan Lal Ladhani learned D.D.P.P. For the State supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace and stated that false application was moved by the applicant against the S.H.O., as S.H.O. Had registered a case 13(d), A.O. Against the brother of the applicant. He prayed for dismissal of application.

8. ' In the case of Muhammad Bashir v., S.H.O. Okara Cantt. And others reported in PLD 2007 Supreme Court 539, the honourable Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under:-- "The scheme of law which becomes apparent from a bare perusal of these provisions is that whenever an Officer Incharge of a Police Station receives some information about the commission of an offence, he is expected first to find out whether the offence disclosed fell into the category of cognizable offences or was one which was non-cognizable. And once he was through with this exercise then .The word "SHALL" appearing in the said provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Would take over which obliged, the S.H.O. Thereafter to reduce the said information to writing in the First Information Report Register as, what is called by Chapter XXIV of the Police Rules of 1934, a F.I.R. If the offence disclosed was cognizable or else to merely record the same in the Station Diary as mentioned by section 155(1) of the Cr.P.C. And rule 24.3 of the said Rules and refer the informant to the competent Magistrate if the offence be non-cognizable. As has been mentioned above sections 154 and 155 of the Cr.P.C. Are the only two provisions in the said Code which talk about the manner in which an information received by a S.H.O. Relating to the commission of an offence was to be treated.

9. ' It may be reiterated and even emphasized that there was no provision in any law, including the said section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C. Which authorized an Officer Incharge of a Police Station to hold any enquiry to assess the correctness or the falsity of the information received by him before complying with the command of the said provisions which obliged him to reduce the same into writing irrespective of the fact whether such an information was true or otherwise."

10. In my considered view SHO Police Station Mithiani was required and bound to register the F.I.R. Of applicant Muhammad Haneef under section 154, Cr.P.C. SHO had absolutely no power to refuse to register the case if from the information/statement a cognizable offence was made out. It is immaterial whether the information is false or correct but the condition precedent for recording the F.I.R. Under section 154, Cr.P.C. Hook is that information must disclose an offence and that too a cognizable one. No doubt, after registration of the F.I.R. Investigation process starts and it is for the investigation officer to ascertain whether the information is true or false under the law. If information is false then police officer is empowered to register a case against the complainant under the relevant provisions of P.P.C. If information discloses an offence which is not cognizable by the police even then SHO is required and bound under section 155, Cr.P.C. To record it in a station diary of the police station and refer the informant to the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction. In no circumstance, police officer SHO can refuse to enter the information in section 154, Cr.P.C. Book or in station diary of the police station as the case may be except on one condition that from information no offence at all is made out. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Ex-Officio of Justice of Peace it transpires that matter has been scrutinized minutely which is not the requirement of the law. Impugned order of Justice of Peace showed that applicant's application was turned down mainly on the ground that case was registered against the brother of applicant under section 13(d), A.O. By the S.H.O. And applicant intended to lodge F.I.R. Against police personnel with mala fide intention to harass SHO from discharging his lawful duty. Whether there was mala fide on the part of applicant for lodging F.I R.

11. Or bona fide intention, it can only be determined after recording statement of applicant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was only required to see as to why SHO had failed to perform his statutory duty. Deeper appreciation at the time of registration of the F.I.R. Was not required as such order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 18-6-2012 is not sustainable under the law and the same is set aside. SHO is directed to register F.1.R. If from the statement of the applicant cognizable offence is made out.

12. ' Applications stands accordingly disposed of.