Pakistan Case Law
1986 P Cr. L J 2658

MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL vs MANZOOR AHMAD

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 P Cr. L J 2658
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No. 1162 of 1984
Date1986-03-31
Judge(s)Akhtar Hassan
ResultPetition accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for the registration of a criminal case against a police officer, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, who allegedly shot the petitioner on a false pretext and subsequently implicated him in a fabricated criminal case. The core legal question before the Court was whether the police are legally obligated to register a First Information Report (FIR) when information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, particularly when a prior judicial inquiry has already substantiated the allegations of misconduct. The Court held that the police authorities could not refuse to register the case, as the judicial inquiry had clearly established the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court accepted the writ petition and directed the Superintendent of Police to register the criminal case against the respondent. The key principle laid down is that under sections 154 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it is mandatory for the officer-in-charge of a police station to record an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, a duty further reinforced by the Police Act 1861 and the Police Rules 1934.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is the officer-in-charge of a police station legally bound to register an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence?
  • Can the police refuse to register a criminal case when a judicial inquiry has already substantiated the allegations of a cognizable offence?
  • Does a judicial inquiry finding of misconduct override a police officer's claim of acting in the discharge of duty?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 23, Police Act 1861
  • Paragraph 25.17, Police Rules 1934
  • Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 224, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
registration of FIRcognizable offencejudicial inquirypolice dutyconstitutional petitionpolice misconduct

By this Constitutional Petition, Muhammad Zafar petitioner prays for a direction from this Court for registration of a criminal case against the respondent A.S.I. Manzoor Ahmad. His version is that he was shot by him on a wrong pretext, was later falsely involved in a case under section 307/353/224/186, P.P.C. Registered at Daska, and was relieved of the same when it was withdrawn as a result of a judicial inquiry held under the orders of the District Magistrate, Sialkot.

2. On 2-12-1986, the learned Assistant Advocate-General sought time to take up the matter with the Inspector-General of Police. Today, he has stated that only a show-cause notice has been issued to the respondent-A.S.-I. By the Superintendent of Police, Gujrat and that they feel that there was no need to register a case at the instance of the petitioner.

3. As noted above, the judicial inquiry supports the allegations against the A.S.I. The provisions of sections 154 and 157 make it incumbent upon officer-in-charge of a Police Station to record the first information report on receipt of such information as discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The same is the purport of section 23 of the Police Act, 1861 read with paragraph 25.17 of the Police Rules, 1934. The information given in the case in hand clearly related to the commission of a cognizable offence and indeed such was the finding of the Magistrate holding judicial inquiry.

The Police could not refuse to enter it in the register prescribed for the purpose. The precedent cases of M. Anwar Barristar-al-Law v. The Station House Officer, Civil Lines Lahore PLD 1972 Lah.

493; Haji Muhammad Khan v. Ch. Khizar Hayat etc. PLD 1977 Lah. 424 and (3) State v. Z.A. Bhutto etc. PLD 1978 Lah. 523 lend support to the petitioner's contention.

4. In reply, learned counsel for the A.S.I. Vainly urged that he shot the fire in discharge of his duty and was protected. The judicial inquiry provides an elaborate answer to it. He was found by the learned Magistrate to have illegally shot the petitioner and later falsely involved him in the criminal case.

5. As a result, I accept the Writ Petition and direct the Superintendent of Police, Sialkot, to register a criminal case against Manzoor Ahmad, A.S.I. As per report of the petitioner.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.