I M TI AZ HUSSA I N vs MUHAMMAD AZAM, S.H.O. DISTRICT OKARA and 3
This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed against a Station House Officer (S.H.O.) alleging police misconduct, specifically the registration of false First Information Reports (F.I.R.s) and the illegal detention of an accused, Nazir Ahmad. The petitioner contended that the S.H.O. registered two separate F.I.R.s regarding incidents occurring months prior to registration and that the accused was kept in illegal confinement between his release on bail in one case and his subsequent arrest in another. The petitioner further alleged that the S.H.O.'s actions were motivated by a personal rental arrangement with a third party. The Court, noting that the challans in both cases had already been submitted to the court of competent jurisdiction, declined to adjudicate the merits of the allegations of police misconduct. Instead, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), Okara, to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of police misconduct and illegal detention, requiring a report to be submitted to the Court within one month.
- Can the High Court direct a departmental inquiry into allegations of police misconduct while a criminal case is pending before a trial court?
- Is a constitutional petition the appropriate forum to determine the veracity of F.I.R.s when the challan has already been submitted to the court of competent jurisdiction?
ORDER
' The explanation called for vide order dated 26-7-2002 has been submitted. The record has been examined. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, F.I.R. No,126 of 2002 was registered by respondent No,1 on 12-6-2002 wherein it has been specifically stated that the occurrence wherein the accused Nazir Ahmad was involved took place 1-1/2 years before the registration of the F.I.R. It is also stated that the accused had admitted the occurrence and also had undertaken to return the alleged stolen property. It is also stated that another F.I.R. No,144 of 2002 was got registered on 28- 6-2002 which was again registered by the same S.H.O. In this F.I.R. The alleged occurrence relates to theft of a she-donkey three months prior to the registration of the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Nazir Ahmad was enlarged on bail on 28-6-2002 but was again arrested in pursuance of F.I.R. No,144 of 2002 on the same day. According to him, Nazir Ahmad was kept in illegal confinement from 28-6-2002 to 9-7-2002 when his arrest was shown in the daily diary on 9-7-2002. As a result of the order dated 9-7-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Okara, bail was subsequently granted to Nazir Ahmad on 22-7-2002.
2. The challan in both the cases has been submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek his appropriate remedy under the law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that respondent No,1/S.H.O. Has obtained residential accommodation on rent from respondent No,2 and that it is on account of this consideration that respondent No,1 has falsely involved Nazir Ahmad in the aforesaid manner.
3. Without commenting upon the contention so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let a copy of this order alongwith the copy of writ petition be sent to the S.S.P., Okara who shall probe into the matter and take such action as is warranted under the law and submit his report to this Court through D.R. (Judi.) within one month.
4. Disposed of in the above observation.
Cited by 1 case
- Ali vs The State 2020 P Cr. L J 880