2014 PLP 2152 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.--This order shall dispose of the instant application filed by the applicant against the impugned order dated 24-4-2014 passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/ Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur on an application under section 22 A&B, Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.3 for the registration of F.I.R.

2. The concise facts leading to filing of this application are that respondent No.3 filed an application under section 22-A & B, Cr.P.C. stating wherein an incident occurring a year back whereby applicant along with his brother Javed and two unidentified persons visited his house and under his permission took his brother Raees to Jinnah Hospital Karachi for treatment as he was seriously ill. The respondent No. 3 kept in touch with the applicant and his brother in respect of his brother's health who always assured him improvement in his health. The respondent No. 3, ultimately visited the said hospital where he found his brother Raees was never admitted there. Alarmed, he approached the proposed accused who divulged that on account of old enmity they had murdered his brother. He strived to lodge report against the proposed accused with police but in vain, which led him into filing above application.

3. Learned ex-Officio Justice of Peace vide impugned order disposed of said application with direction to the SHO concerned to record the statement of the respondent No 3.

4. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the applicant has preferred the instant application.

5. The learned counsel for applicant has argued that the application for registration of F.I.R. was filed malafidely by the respondent No.3 against applicant on account of a civil dispute between them over property having C.S.No.1408-A admeasuring 132382 sq. yards situated in Kachi Abadi old Sukkur. He referred to the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 31/09 passed by 2nd Additional(sic) Sukkur filed by the applicant against the respondent No. 3 to bring home his contention relating to the civil dispute between the parties. He further stated that the brother of respondent had in fact, died out of neck Cancer and in this regard he referred to a death certificate dated 29-7-13 purportedly issued by a Karachi based private hospital showing cause of death due to chronic neck cancer. He also made reference to some photocopies of Medical Examination Testes of deceased Raees to show that he was patient of Cancer and was not killed by the applicant. He further argued that since respondent No3 could not succeed in civil litigation against the applicant hence, in order to settle score with him he filed the application for F.I.R. He lastly prayed for setting aside the impugned order. He also argued that after registration of F.I.R., a kind of witch-hunt against the applicant and his brother would start who are respectables of the area.

6. Rebutting him the counsel for respondent argued that applicant and his brother had committed murder of respondent's brother which they had admitted before him. He stated that respondent tried his best to lodge the report against the applicant but failed, as such filed the application for F.I.R. He argued that per section 154,Cr.P.C. the S.H.O. of PS 'C' section, Sukkur is bound to record the statement of the respondent if it is in respect of cognizable offence.

7. The learned D.P.G. appearing for the State argued that story narrated by the respondent in his application is not believable or probable. He submitted that efficacious remedy in the shape of direct complaint is provided under the law which shall be resorted to by the respondent.

8. I have heard the parties and gone through the record with their assistance.

9. In order to appreciate the vires of the impugned order, the same is reproduced here for ready reference:-- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned DDPP for the State and perused the papers. SHO PS 'C' Section Sukkur is directed to record the statement of applicant and if cognizable offence is made out within his jurisdiction, he should register the F.I.R. as per law. However, during investigation if the case is found false, Investigation Officer should take action against complainant according to law under intimation to this Court. I have been benefited from below case-laws of honourable Superior Courts viz 2013 YLR Page 581 (Sindh), 2013 PCr.LJ 443, PLD 2005 Karachi page 621, MLD 2008 page 1142, 2009 PCr.LJ 138, 2009 PCr.LJ 13374(sic) and 2009 PCr.LJ 387, 2008 YLR 2301 (Lahore), 2013 PCr.LJ 117 Placitum 'a' & 'c' 2012 PCr.LJ 180, 2005 YLR 1313, resultantly the application in hand is disposed of accordingly".

10. The scheme of law in terms of section 154, Cr.P.C. is quite palpable that in case an informant brings forth an information disclosing commission of cognizable offense to the SHO, he has to record the same in the relevant register. No authority is vested with the incharge police station to indulge himself into examining the veracity or falsity of such information by conducting an enquiry before actually exercising the mandate provided to him under section 154, Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-- "

154. Information in cognizable cases.

Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer-incharge of a police-station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf". Words " every information" relating to the commission of a cognizable offence pertain only to the information supplied and do no speak of actual commission of offence. It is not the requirement of law that an F.I.R. to be registered such information shall ultimately prove true. The SHO has to satisfy himself only to the extent that information is respect of any offence which is cognizable. Reliance is placed on case-laws PLD 2007 SC 539 and 2007 PCr.LJ 909.

11. The facts in respect of civil dispute between the parties raised by the counsel for the applicant, which he wanted this court to thrash out, and the documents, he desired this Court to believe, in fact, could not be enquired into at this juncture as the same are to be examined by the Investigating Officer in case an F.I.R. is registered. And even before that the SHO is empowered in terms of section 157(b), Cr.P.C. to refrain from investigation, when there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation. Section 157(b) is reproduced here:-- "

157. Procedure where cognizable offence suspected.

(1) If from information received or otherwise, an officer-incharge of a Police Station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police-report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the Provincial Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender: Provided as follows:-- (a) . (b) Where police-officer-incharge sees no sufficient ground for investigation, if it appears to the officer-in-charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case".

12. The arrangement of law has further provided mandate to the SHO in terms of section 182, P.P.C. and at later stage under section 193, P.P.C. and 195 P.P.C. to the court to take action against the person who is found to have furnished false information or given false evidence in the court. In presence of such safeguards stipulated under the law, an exercise by this court to advert to the probability of information stated by the respondent would not be warranted and better be left to the functioning of above mechanism meant to meet the exigencies or apprehensions raised by learned counsel for the applicant. More so, albeit the Police is competent to investigate every allegations of cognizable offence in terms of section 156, Cr.P.C., a person named in it cannot be arrested unless, some tangible and reliable evidence is found which shows his nexus with the commission of offence. Such protection, including the safeguards discussed supra, is sufficient for any innocent person against whom a false F.I.R. is registered.

13. In view of above discussion the instant application stands dismissed.

14. In above terms the application is disposed of. MWA/M-122/Sindh Order accordingly.