MANSOOR AHMED vs S.H.O. POLICE STATION "A" SECTION, SUKKUR and others
This constitutional petition was filed seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register an F.I.R. regarding an alleged incident of threats and subsequent death of the petitioner's father within the court precincts. The proposed accused contested the petition, alleging the incident was fabricated and stemmed from a matrimonial dispute. During the proceedings, the S.H.O. submitted a statement affirming that if the petitioner appeared at the police station, the F.I.R. would be registered. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition as not pressed, expressing satisfaction with the S.H.O.'s statement. The proposed accused opposed this withdrawal, citing various precedents. The Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. It further ruled that it is the sole prerogative of a petitioner to press or withdraw their petition, and no other party can coerce them otherwise. The Court observed that the purpose of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to set the investigation machinery in motion, and the Investigating Officer must act independently based on the evidence.
- Can disputed questions of fact be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a proposed accused have the right to prevent a petitioner from withdrawing a constitutional petition?
- What is the primary object of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' By this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:-
(a) To direct the respondent 1 to register the F.I.R. Of the petitioner against accused persons mentioned above in para.3 and investigate the case according to law.
(b) Grant any other equitable relief as deemed fit and proper in favour of the petitioner by this Honourable Court in circumstances of the case.
2. ' The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the petition by the petitioner are that the brother of the petitioner namely Sardar Ahmed lodged F.I.R. Against one Shah Muhammad and others being Crime No,28 of 2000 of Police Station Ghotki. The persons named as accused therein filed their bail application before this Court and they were granted protective bail on 26-2-2001, On the same date, the petitioner alongwith his father. P. Ws. Atta Muhammad. Imtiaz and Khair Muhammad had come in the Court in connection with the case stated hereinabove. The proposed accused Rasool Bux, Ghulam Sarwar, Shah Muhammad, Haji Khan, Gaji Khan, Ayoob, Munir Ahmed and Mst. Taslim had also come. The proposed accused issued threats of dire consequences to the petitioner within the precincts of the Court with the result father of the petitioner by name Mir Ahmed could not sustain the threats and due to shock and mental torture fallen on the ground. The father of the petitioner was immediately removed to Diwan-e-Mushtaq Hospital where he expired at about 11 a.m.
3. ' It is further stated that the petitioner requested the respondent 1 for registration of F.I.R. But he declined'.
4. ' In pursuance to notice, proposed accused Shah Muhammad has filed counter-affidavit wherein he has denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner. He has further stated that they are on inimical terms with the petitioner party over matrimonial dispute. He contracted marriage with Mst.
5. Taslim, the cousin of present petitioner to the annoyance of the petitioner and her parents. Sardar Ahmed, real brother of the petitioner got registered F.I.R. No,28 of 2001 at Police Station Ghotki against Shah Muhammad, his father and Mst. Taslim. The police at the behest of petitioner party wanted to arrest and humiliate the proposed accused; therefore, they filed bail application before this Court and were granted bail.
6. ' It is further stated that on the alleged day of incident i.e, 26-2-2001, the proposed accused were present in this Court up to 1-30 p.m. In connection with their bail application. No such incident occurred on that day nor petitioner party reported any such incident to concerned authorities. The death certificate is managed one and story put forward is concocted. The petitioner did not go for registration of F.I.R.
7. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh has filed the statement of S.H.O., Police Station,. "A"
8. Section, Sukkur. The contents of the same are reproduced herein below in extenso:-- ' "It is submitted that the petitioner is not appeared at police station for registration of F.I.R., if he will appear, his F.I.R. Will be registered."
9. I have heard Mr. Mughal Mumtaz Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the very outset, he stated that his client is satisfied with the statement of the respondent 1 reproduced hereinabove and does not press the present petition, therefore, the same may be disposed of as not pressed.
10. ' I have heard Mr. Saifuddin Shah, learned counsel for the proposed accused. He has opposed the request of the petitioner and insisted that this matter may be disposed of in the light of the averments made by the proposed accused. The petition may not be disposed of as per the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner. He has relied upon the following case-law:--
(1) Saifullah Khan and another v. Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and others 1982 SCM R 853,
(2) Qaiser Mahmood v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1998 Lah. 72,
(3) Jamshed Ahmed v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another 1975 SCMR 149,
(4) Wazir Ahmed v. S.H.O. Police Station Mahboob Kalhoro and others 1990 PCr.LJ 2006,
(5) Altaf Hussain v. Government of Sindh and others PLD 1997 Kar. 600,
(6) Allan Khan v. S.H.O. Police Station Mouladad 1999 PCr.LJ 681,
(7) Gul Muhammad Shah alias Riaz Shah v. S.H.O: Police Station "B" Section, Sukkur and another (unreported decision of this Court) in C.P. No,S-780 of 2000.
11. ' Mr. Ghulam Dastagir Shahani, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh states that the proposed accused have no locus standi at this stage. In this context he has placed reliance upon the case of Saeed Ahmed and others v. Nasir Ahmed PLD 2000 Lah.
208. He further states that each and every case is to be decided on its peculiar facts and circumstances and it is prerogative of the petitioner to press or not to press his petition.
12. I have perused the material placed on record, which shows that there are disputed facts. Disputed facts, cannot be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction. The object/wisdom behind promulgating section 154, Cr.P.C. Is to bring the machinery of Investigation Agency into motion. The allegations and counter-allegations can be urged by the parties before the Investigating Officer and in the light of those, as well as the independent investigation, the Investigating Officer can arrive at independent conclusion and act according to law. Moreover, the matter solely not rests at the whim of the Investigating Officer but ultimately matter can go for adjudication before a Court of law where, undoubtedly those complained against are given full and absolute opportunity of hearing.
13. ' It is also clarified that under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it is the sole prerogative of the petitioner to press the petition or not for the relief sought by him. No party to the proceedings can coerce him from not doing so.
14. ' The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the proposed accused referred hereinaoove are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case and are of no avail to the proposed accused.
15. Consequently, the petition stands disposed of as not pressed alongwith listed application.