2007 PLP 1905 (YLR)
MALIK ZAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1905 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Salim Khan, J |
| Parties | MALIK ZAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1905 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1905 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Salim Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1905 (YLR) (MALIK ZAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdullah Khan Tanoli for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 2007.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.22-A(6) (i), 154, 156, 157 & 561-A
Registration of case and investigation therein
Investigation was not to be conducted before registration of the case
Officer in charge of the police station was bound to either register or cause to be registered the F.I.R. as and when written or oral information was received by him regarding commission of cognizable offence
Justice of Peace was expected to direct in charge of concerned police station to register F.I.R., which he had not directed in the case
Original order of the Justice of Peace was not only evasive, but was not covered by the provisions of S. 22-A(6) (i), Cr. P. C.
Order was quashed with' direction to concerned officer in charge of the police station to register F.I.R., to investigate the case at tile information given by the petitioner and after completing investigation, take into consideration the provisions of Ss.169, 170 & 173, Cr.P.C.-Officer in charge of police station would be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the complainant if it was proved that complaint was frivolous and false. Qari Abdul Rashid, D.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALIM KHAN, J.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, on the complaint of the petitioner, Malik Zahid son of Malik Muhammad Irfan, a cognizable offence was reported to the S.H.O. but the report was recorded on Mad No.18 in the Daily Diary dated 14-11-2006, and no F.I.R. was recorded according to the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C., for which investigation was to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of section 156 of the same Code. He further contended that the information was not regarding a non-cognizable offence and the provisions of section 155 of the said Code were not applicable. It was also argued by him that the provisions of section 157, Cr.P.C. were not attracted as there was no question of suspicion on information, rather it was a direct information by an aggrieved person.
2. The learned counsel contended that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (Sessions Judge, Mansehra) was expected to issue appropriate direction for recording/ registration of F.I.R. of the cognizable offence when complaint was made to him, but he allowed the concerned S.H.O. a free hand and to first inquire and then to act accordingly.
3. The learned D.A.-G. for the State is of the view that the directions of the learned Sessions Judge as Ex-Officio Justice of Peace were proper as it was not yet confirmed whether the offence had been committed actually or not.
4. Investigation is not to be conducted before registration of the case. It is bounden duty of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station to either register, or cause to be registered, the F.I.R. as and when written or oral information is received by him regarding commission of a cognizable offence. The learned Justice of Peace was expected to direct the concerned Incharge of Police Station to register the F.I.R. which he has not directed.
5. I, therefore, hold that the original order of the learned Justice of Peace is not only evasive but is' not covered by the provisions of section 22-A(6)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. I, therefore, order the quashment of the said order and direct the concerned Officer Incharge of the police station to register the F.I.R., to investigate the case at the information given by the petitioner, and, after completing investigation, take into consideration the provisions of sections 169, 170 and 173 of the said Code. The Officer Incharge of police station will be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the complainant if it is proved that the complaint was frivolous and false. I order accordingly. H.B.T./100/P Order accordingly.