1994 P Cr (PLP)

Art.199

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.154

Registration of F.I.R.

Reluctance or hesitation on the part of Police to register a criminal case could not be taken as a display of arbitrariness, rather appeared to be justified in the circumstances of the case

No justification having been made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the- Constitution, Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine. M. Iftikhar Shah for Petitioner There is a prayer made by one Gulzar Ahmad, resident of Liaquat Abad, District Mianwali, that S.H.O. Police Station Piplan be directed by this Court, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, to register a case against Hasham and Iqbal sons of Imam Din, who had usurped an amount of Rs. 98,600 in a fraudulent manner. He claims having advanced the money to them for purchasing grains, Rs. 92,500, being price of grain, and Rs.6,100 being cost of gunny bags. Neither the grain was supplied to him, nor was the aforesaid amount returned to him, by Hashim and Iqbal, who, when contacted, held out threats that they would kill him. When the petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police. Mianwali, he promised to help him but ultimately under the influence of the defaulter, no action against them was initiated.

2. It is maintained by the petitioner that it is lawful duty of the respondent S.H.O. to register a case against the accused persons, who prima facie had committed a cognizable offence; and in not doing so, the S.H.O. would be failing in performance of his statutory duty, and the petitioner has no other efficacious and speedy remedy available to him, except to approach this Court, in the manner he has done.

3. Ghulam Akbar S.I. on behalf of the S.H.O. P.S. Piplan has appeared and made a report in writing to the effect that a complaint lodged with the S.H.O. by Gulzar Ahmad had, on 10-9-1992, been entrusted to him by the Inspector, and he had conducted preliminary investigation, by summoning the claimant and the other two persons involved, namely Hasham and Muhammad Iqbal. They had declined to acknowledge that they owed any amount to Gulzar Ahmad, who according to them was a big cheat and was in the habit of harassing people around. Gulzar Ahmad could not produce any tangible and worthwhile evidence in support of has claim and instead insisted that police should take action against Hasham and Iqbal and recover from them an enormous amount which he had advanced to them and which they had mis appropriated.

4. From the very contents of the complaint aforesaid, and the present petition under Article 199, it amply transpires that there were business dealings between the parties, as pleaded by the petitioner, from whom Hasham and Iqbal had allegedly received a huge amount as price of grains, which they never supplied to him and defrauded the amount. If the persons named as accused had received the money as 'Amanat' and had then committed criminal breach of trust, they could be proceeded against criminally; but only an oral assertion or a hollow claim made by a person must not always be made the basis for initiation of criminal proceedings or registration of a criminal case against the person, whom the former has chosen to arraign as an accused. The petitioner has no proof with him as regards payment of a little less than one lac rupees to those persons, who according to him have defrauded him and deprived him of the money by holding out to him a false promise about supply of grains. On the face of it, the deal appear 'to be in the nature of a civil dispute, and would not constitute a criminal liability, for which the persons named by the petitioner could be made answerable on the criminal plane. He could file a civil suit and establish his claim by tendering the document, if one was in existence or by leading oral evidence of dependable nature. In my considered view, this august Court would not be enhancing its prestige by asserting itself in every matter of this kind in the manner desired by the people, putting them up as wronged or aggrieved persons, in need of immediate relief. Refusal by the police to step in may, at times, be motivated or just dereliction of duty on its part, but in a case like this, the reluctance or hesitation to act, by registering a criminal case, cannot be taken as a display of arbitrariness but would appear to be justified, on the part of the police. No justification has been made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution by this Court, in the instant case, and I would. therefore, dismiss the petition in limine. N.H.Q./G-103/L Petition dismissed