P L D 1996 Lahore 598 (PLP)
JEHANGIR and another ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION'GHAZIABAD, SAHIWAL ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1996 Lahore 598 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Asif Jan, J |
| Parties | JEHANGIR and another ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION'GHAZIABAD, SAHIWAL ‑‑‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1996 Lahore 598 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1996 Lahore 598 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Asif Jan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1996 Lahore 598 (PLP) (JEHANGIR and another ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION'GHAZIABAD, SAHIWAL ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Makhdoom, 1jaz Hussain Bokhari for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ S. 11 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑Quashing of, P. I.R. ‑‑‑Police had a statutory right under S.156, Cr.P.C. to investigate a cognizable offence ‑‑‑ To quash the police investigation on the ground that the case was false would have been to tread on treacherous grounds and could tantamount to an uncalled for interference by the Court with the duties of the police‑‑‑Constitutional petition having no merit and was dismissed in limine. Einperor v. KhawaJa Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 19; M. S. KhawaJa v. The State PLD 1965 SC 287; Shahnaz Begum v. The honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677 and PLD 1993 SC 399 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ ‑‑‑‑ Ss. 561‑A, 154 & 156 ‑‑‑ Cognizable offence ‑‑‑ Investigation by police‑‑ Interference by Court ‑‑‑ Judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their domain and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry ‑‑‑ Functidns of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its one function ‑‑‑ Functions of the Court begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then Emperor v. KhawaJa Nazir Alunad AIR 1945 PC 18 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Ss. 561‑A, 154 & 156 ‑‑‑ Quashing of F R.‑‑‑ Investigation stage is outside the purview of the Court ‑ M. S. Khawaja v. The State PLD 1965 SC 287 ref. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Ss. 561‑A, 154 & 156 ‑‑‑ Quashing of investigation proceedings ‑‑‑ There is no power to quash an investigation. Shalmaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677 and PLD 1993 SC 399 ref. Dat6 of hearing; 3rd June, 1996.
Judgment & Decree
Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan of 1973, the petitioners seek quashment of a case registered against them vide F.I.R. No. 101/95, dated the 15th of April, 1995, under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (VII of 1974) inter alia on the ground that the case against the petitioners is false and that they are innocent.
2. It is settled law since 1945 that the police are under a statutory duty under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and have a statutory right A under section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate a cognizable offence whenever a report is made to it disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. To quash the police investigation on the ground that the case is false would be to act on treacherous grounds and would tantamount to an A uncalled for interference by the Court with the duties of the police. Just as it is essential that everyone accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their domain and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function. The Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then. The observance and the ratio decidendi of their Lordship of the Privy Council made in the case of Empero: v. KhawaJa Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 Privy Council 18 has been consistently approved and followed by the superior Courts of Pakistan.
3. In the case of M.S. Khawaja v. The State PLD 1965 Supreme Court e of 287, his lordship Mr. Justice A.R. Cornelius, the then Chief Justice of Pakistan was pleased to observe that the investigation stage is outside the purview of the Court. It was again held by his lordship Mr. Justice Hamoodur Rahman, the then Chief Justice of Pakistan in the case of Shahnaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 Supreme Court 677, that there is no power to quash an investigation. I The same view has been expressed by my Lord Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, the present Chief Justice of Pakistan in the case of Badaruddin v. The Additional Sessions Judge of Jhang reported in P L D 1993 Supreme Court 399.
4. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./J‑9/1,