2009 P Cr (PLP)

SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILANI, J.

When learned counsel for the petitioner. explained facts of the case, it revealed on record that the respondent Haji Muhammad Ramzan applied under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R. on the basis of allegations that Tariq Habib (petitioner herein) issued a fraudulent and bogus cheque which was dishonoured and in spite of reporting these allegations constituting a cognizable offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., the S.H.O. Police Station Cantt. D.I. Khan did not register the case. Hence, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/Justice of Peace, D.I. Khan, vide order, dated 16-6-2009 directed registration of F.I.R. against the petitioner. Till so far this order has not been complied with and we have been told at the Bar that F.I.R. has not yet been registered, which itself is highly objectionable which may expose the S.H.O. of Police Station Cantt. D.I. Khan to explain his indolence, but the instant constitutional petition has been moved for declaring that the aforesaid order of Justice of Peace is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued before us that the accusations levelled against petitioner are baseless and false, learned Justice of the Peace did not held enquiry or heard the petitioner to scrutinize veracity of his allegation. We do not agree with learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that the impugned order is within the parameters of section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. according to law and with lawful authority because when a cognizable offence is alleged and reported by a citizen, the S.H.O. of the concerned police station is bound to register F.I.R. under the mandatory provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. There is chain of authorities on this point of law. The recent judgment of Honourable apex Court handed down in the case of Jamal Khan v. Abdur Rehman PLD 2009 SC 102, speaks the same in following valuable words:-- "The "The police are under a statutory duty under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and have a statutory right 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 uncalled for interference by the Court with the duties of police."

3. This legal point has also been decided by Honourable apex Court in the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara, Cantt. and others PLD 2007 SC 539 that no enquiry before lodging F.I.R. in alleged cognizable offence is permissible under the law, both by the S.H.O. or Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace. Relevant para. No.36 of this judgment is quoted below for ready reference:

"For the purposes of this petition, we are concerned, primarily, with clause (i) of the above quoted provisions of subsection (6) of the section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. These provisions create a new forum to rectify a wrong done by an Officer Incharge of a Police Station by refusing to register a criminal case i.e. not recording an F.I.R. We have held above that the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. command an S.H.O. to lodge an F.I.R. if the information conveyed to him disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the information being correct or incorrect. Undoing this wrong of non-registration of a criminal case would mean only an order to the S.H.O. to register the case. The provisions of the said subsection (6) of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. confer no additional powers on an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to hold an enquiry to assess the credibility of such an information communicated for the purpose in question nor do the said provisions give any extra authority to the said Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to refuse registration or order non-registration of an F.I.R. in violation of or beyond the mandatory requirements of section 154, Cr.P.C."

4. We, therefore, hold that since in the case in hand a cognizable offence has been alleged and the S.H.O. was reluctant to register F.I.R., the Justice of the Peace had no other option but to issue direction for registration of case which was issued and it must be complied with.

5. The writ petition is found without force and dismissed in limine. However, it will not preclude the petitioner to seek any remedy according to law in the light of this Court's judgment delivered in Salahuddin S.H.O. v. Mst. Noor Jehan PLD 2008 Pesh. 53, but that too, after registration of the case. H.B.T./160/P Petition dismissed.