1977 P Cr (PLP)
Ch. SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus S. H. O., RAHIMYER KHAN AND 2 OTHERS‑-‑Respondents
| Citation | 1977 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan, J |
| Parties | Ch. SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus S. H. O., RAHIMYER KHAN AND 2 OTHERS‑-‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 P Cr (PLP) (Ch. SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus S. H. O., RAHIMYER KHAN AND 2 OTHERS‑-‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian M. Zafar Yasin for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 154 & 157 read with Punjab Police Rules, 1934, r. 24.4 ‑.
1. R., registration of‑Alleged incident although reported to Police yet Police Officer refusing either to register a case or make any investigation, having reasons to suspect that no such cognizable offence as alleged was ever committed‑Action of Police, held, not without lawful authority, in circumstance.‑[First Information Report.
Judgment & Decree
S. H. O., RAHIMYER KHAN AND 2 OTHERS‑-‑Respondents Writ Petition No. 821 of 1976, decided on 31st March 1976. Ss. 154 & 157 read with Punjab Police Rules, 1934, r. 24.4 ‑. 1. R., registration of‑Alleged incident although reported to Police yet Police Officer refusing either to register a case or make any investigation, having reasons to suspect that no such cognizable offence as alleged was ever committed‑Action of Police, held, not without lawful authority, in circumstance.‑[First Information Report. Mian M. Zafar Yasin for Appellant. From the averments in the petition, it appears that the petitioner made a report of the alleged incident to the Police, but they refused to register the case or make any investigation in that respect and simply made an entry in the daily diary of the police station. According to rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules "if the information or other intelligence relating to the alleged commission of a cognizable offence, is such that an officer‑in‑charge of a police station has reason to suspect that the alleged offence has not been committed, he shall enter the substance of the information or intelligence in the station diary and shall record his reasons for suspecting that the alleged offence has not been committed and shall also notify to the informant, if any, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated", In sub‑rule (3) of Rule 24.4, it is further written that "when reasonable suspicion of such commission arises a First Information Report shall be recorded in the police station concerned and investigation under section 157 Criminal Procedure Code, shall be made". To the same strain is Rule 24.1 of the Punjab Police Rules. These Rules are in line with the proviso to section 157 and section 154 of the Cr. P. C. In that view of the matter, if the Police, suspecting that there was no reasonable ground for recording the F. I. R. or making the investigation has refused to proceed in the matter, the action of the police cannot be said to be without lawful authority. More over the petitioner, in my opinion, has also a remedy, if he is so advised, to file a complaint before a Court of competent jurisdiction. For both these reasons I do not entertain the present petition and dismiss the same in limine. Petition dismissed.