Sheikh KHALID MEHMOOD vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 5 others

ORDER

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this single order I propose to decide the instant writ petition along with Writ Petition No, 16394 of 2013 because by virtue of the passage of order dated 10-6-2013 passed by the learned Justice of Peace, Lahore parties to these petitions opted to approach this Court for redressal of their respective grievances.

2. Sheikh Khalid Mehmood petitioner has challenged the vires of the impugned order dated 10-6- 2013 through which the learned Justice of Peace has directed the Station House Officer concerned to record the statement of the Mst. Musarrat Afza petitioner in Writ Petition No,16394 of 2013 and then proceed with the matter as per law whereas above said Mst. Musarrat Afza petitioner has approached this Court for compliance of the above said order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No,16573 of 2013 submits that Mst. Musarrat Afza procured the impugned order from the learned Justice of Peace while concealing and twisting the material facts. As a matter of fact the son of the petitioner has committed suicide by taking poisonous tablets after a refusal on the part of the petitioner for giving hands of respondent No, 3 to him. In their comments filed by the police before the learned Justice of Peace in connection with petition under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. Filed by Mst. Musarrat Afza for compliance of order dated 10-6-2013 the police have totally refuted the allegations levelled by her against Sh. Khalid Mehmood petitioner and his other family members. Mst. Musarrat Afza is trying to spread the net wide just to entangle the whole family of the petitioner in a false and frivolous case by giving a different colour of occurrence. Even the police have thrashed the matter from the respectable of the locality where Mst. Musarrat Afza is residing who unanimously supported the first version of Mst.

Musarrat Afza that his son has committed suicide as incorporated in the rapat No, 26, dated 2-6- 2013 and rapat No, 19, dated 2-6-2013 got recorded by the police. The record of hospital also shows that Mst. Musarrat herself refused to get conduct Post-mortem Examination of her son which fact shows that her son has taken poisonous tablets himself and the story narrated in the application is a pack of lies. So at this belated stage demand for registration of F.I.R. Against the petitioner and his family members would be contrary to the rule of estoppel. The impugned order passed by the learned Justice of Peace has caused a grave miscarriage of justice qua the petitioner and his other family members. Even otherwise according to the contents of the application moved before the learned Justice of Peace no cognizable offence is made out. The attempt for registration of case against the petitioner is nothing but an effort to take revenge for not giving the hands of petitioner's daughter/respondent No, 3 for the son of Mst. Musarrat Afza.

4. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the learned counsel for respondents No,

2. Mst. Musarrat Afza has controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Justice or Peace, hence the same needs no interference by this Court. The matter whether the son of Mst. Musarrat Afza has committed suicide or he has been administered poisonous tablets can only be thrashed out through investigation which is sole prerogative of police and this Court is not expected to assume to the role of investigation agency through writ jurisdiction. From the contents. Of the application moved by the petitioner for registration of F.I.R.

Apparently commission of a cognizable offence is made out, thus, by virtue of the law laid down in PLD 2007 SC 539 the Station House Officer is legally bound to register a criminal case. There is no wrong with the orders dated 10-6-2013 and 25-6-2013 passed by the learned Justice of Peace which are absolutely in apt with the spirit of law laid down in supra judgment. Resolving of factual controversy through these petitions would amount to throttle the process of investigation by the police as matter is serious in nature which needs discrete and proper investigation and the same could only be conducted after registration of case. The complainant who alleges the commission of a cognizable offence not only has a right that his allegation should be recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. But also has a right that his allegation should be investigated so that the same could reach at logical and legal end. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has relied on 2011 YLR 131.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of application moved by Mst. Musarrat Afza/respondent No, 2 for the registration of case it has been noticed by this Court that law is quite settled by now that when an information regarding commission of a cognizable offence is given to the learned Justice of Peace he is duty bound to issue direction to the concerned Station House Officer to record the statement of informer and then to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law application moved by Mst. Musarrat Afza respondent No,2 is not regarding matrimonial dispute rather the contents of the same disclose an occurrence regarding murder of Muhammad Farhaas in lieu of Rs,5,00,000. The question whether Muhammad Farhaas deceased has been administered poisonous tablets by the petitioner and his other family members or he himself has committed suicide is a question of fact which can he resolved after recording of evidence and this exercise cannot be carried out by this Court in summary procedure while sitting A in writ jurisdiction. The matter needs thorough investigation which could be conducted at an appropriate stage by the police and this Court would not like to assume the role of the police at such a premature stage. Any interference at this stage would amount to throttle the investigation which is not allowed as laid down in PLD 1971 SC 77 and PLD 1993 SC 399.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No,16573 of 2013 has laid a great emphasis on the point that as information supplied by Mst. Musarrat Afza regarding commission of suicide by his son had been incorporated in Rapats Nos. 19 and 26 both dated 2-6-2013 by the police, therefore, the registration of case at this stage against the petitioner would amount to violation of principle of estoppel. This Court, however, remained unable to appreciate this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner because this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived for the reason that the rule of estoppel has nothing to do with criminal investigation or proceedings. In this regard reliance can be placed on 2009 PCr.LJ 1259. Even otherwise in the criminal investigations the supplementary statement of the complainant can be recorded by the Investigating Officer subsequently after having learnt certain new facts during the investigation and it is the duty of the investigating agency to dig out the truth so that the real culprit may not go scott free and any innocent person may not be constrained to face the miseries of criminal investigation.

7. For the above discussed reasons, I have seen no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 10-6-2013 passed by the learned Justice of Peace, hence taking guidance from the case reported as PLD 2007 SC 539, I have not seen any force in this petition which is hereby dismissed. In consequential of the discussion made above Writ Petition No, 16394 is allowed and the Station House Officer of Police Station Sabzazaar, Lahore is directed to record the statement of Mst.

Musarrat Afza under section 154, Cr.P.C. And then proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law.