FAYYAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE And Others
The petitioner, Fayyaz Ahmad, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of First Information Report No. 212 of 1995 registered at Police Station Khushab. The core legal question was whether an F.I.R. for an offence under Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could be legally registered on the direct complaint of a private individual without adhering to the bar contained in Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that an offence under Section 295-A, P.P.C. is non-cognizable and requires a complaint made by order of or under the authority from the Central or Provincial Government or an empowered officer pursuant to Section 196, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the court ruled that the registration of the F.I.R. by a private complainant was illegal and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings for offences relating to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings cannot be initiated directly by private complaint without the mandatory sanction or authority prescribed under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Can a private individual directly lodge an F.I.R. for an offence under section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without complying with section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an offence under section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cognizable by the police?
- What is the statutory authority required to institute a complaint for offences under section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 188, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 295, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 295-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Fayyaz Ahmad, petitioner, through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks quashment of F.I.R. Bearing No.212 of 1995, registered at Police Station Khushab, under section 188, P.P.C. On a written complaint of Muhammad Jahangir son of Muhammad Shafi.
2. The complainant alleged that certain persons belonging to Usmani Group and Jewish lobby, who do not believe in "AHADIS" have been engaged in distributing literature among the public for the purpose of reading sectarianism and creating law and order situation by way of insulting the religious, feelings of majority of the people. According to the complainant, the said Group' is headed by Fayyaz Ahmad petitioner and two others. The complainant quoted certain portions of the said literature.
3. A bare reading of the F.I.R. Shows that the provisions under section 188, P.P.C. Are not attracted to the facts of the case and for this reason, the police considered it proper to add sections 295 and 295-A, P.P.C. Section 295, P.P.C. Is attracted, when a place of worship is damaged or defiled, whereas section 295-A deals with the acts, which are intended to outrage the feeling of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. I am, therefore of the considered view that the contents of the F.I.R., prima facie disclose the commission of an offence under section 295-A, P.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the registration of the instant case on the sole ground that Mahmoon Ahmad (complainant) was not competent to lodge the F.I.R. He submitted that under section 196, Cr.P.C. a complaint for an offence under section 295-A, P.P.C. Can be made by order of or under the authority from the Central Government or the Provincial Government or some officer empowered in this behalf by either of the two Governments. Moreover, this offence is not cognizable by the police, although, it is non-bailable and entails punishment up to 10 years.
5. The learned Law Officer could not controvert the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the F.I.R. Having not been lodged by a competent person is of no consequence.
For the reasons given above, the registration of the impugned F.I.R. Is held to be illegal. Accordingly, it is quashed.
Cited by 4 cases
- Atta Muhammad Deshani vs District Police Officer, Haripur and 02 others 2018 PHC 1670
- ATTA MUHAMMAD DESHANI vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, HARIPUR and 2 2019 P Cr. L J 275
- RAZA MUHAMMAD SHAH vs The STATE 2014 YLR 2134
- Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Advocate, Member Peshawar High Court Bar 2023 PLJ Peshawar 31