2006 P Cr (PLP)

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition to call in question order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, dated 4-2-2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed S.1-I.O. to register a case if legal requirements are fulfilled. The main objection is on para.2 of the impugned order, which is as under:-- "Be that as it may, the petitioner is directed to approach concerned S.H.O. with written application regarding his grievance and S.H.O. concerned while acting in accordance with law shall register a case if the contents of the application disclose a cognizable offence."

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the above order is neither a speaking order nor consistent with the law. According to him, S.H.O. is fist required to enter substance of the complaint in a register and then register F.I.R.; this legal requirement is missing in the impugned order.

3. The relevant law on the subject is section 154, Cr.P.C. According to the said section, every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence whether given in writing or reduced to writing shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered into a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf. Simple reading of section 154, Cr.P.C. requires registration of F.I.R. and substance of the complaint to be entered into a book known as Daily Diary PLD 1999 Lah.

417. The condition is that such information must disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Whether the complaint is false or true, it is not relevant to know that action is taken either under section 156 or 157, Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed S.H.O. in impugned order that he would register a case if the contents of the application disclosed a cognizable offence. Therefore, I do not think that the impugned order is inconsistent with section 154, Cr.P.C.

4. The learned counsel has referred, particularly, PLD 1990 Lah.

428. If this judgment is read in conjunction with section 154, Cr.P.C. and rule

24. I of the Police Rules, 1934, it becomes clear that every information regarding commission of a cognizable offence has to be reduced into writing. That means registration of an F.I.R. The substance of the F.I.R. shall be entered into police station daily diary. Both these two acts have to be done together. If the information provided or disclosed no commission of a cognizable offence, the concerned Police Officer would proceed as contemplated under section 157, Cr.P.C., otherwise he would proceed as envisaged under section 156, Cr.P.C. to be read with rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934.

5. According to the Honourable Supreme Court, under section 154, Cr.P.C. it is mandatorily bounden duty of the Police Officer to register an F.I.R. of a cognizable offence. Under section 157, Cr.P.C., he has to send his report to the Magistrate if he does not want to investigate a ease for reason of insufficient grounds. This decision of the Honourable Supreme Court clearly requires registration of a case if commission of a cognizable offence is reported. The S.H.O./Investigating Officer has discretion to decline investigation under section 157, Cr.P.C. if he considers that there is no evidence or ground to initiate the investigation. Therefore, registration of a case under section 154, Cr.P.C. and non-investigation under section 157, Cr.P.C. are two distinct actions. In the first, if a complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the c Police Officer has no discretion but in the second situation, he has discretion to refuse investigation (Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah v. State 1993 SCMR 550). A Full Bench of this Court also held that section 154, Cr.P.C. leaves no doubt that it is incumbent upon the officer incharge of the police station to record the first information report State v. Zulfigar Ali Bhutto PLD 1978 Lah.

523. His Lordship Mr. Justice Mian Allah Nawaz, after reviewing the previous case-law on the subject produced a comprehensive judgment on the subject. Referring to M. Anwar's case PLD 1972 Lah. 493, his Lordship held that correct or true implementation is not necessary to record the F.I.R. This question,? whether the information/complaint is correct or incorrect, depends on the investigation subsequent to registration of the F.I.R. His Lordship further observed that section 154, Cr.P.C. is obligatory in nature and S.H.O. has no option but to record the statement of the complainant in the relevant register, if it discloses commission of cognizable offence. If he finds that the occurrence reported, does not disclose any cognizable offence, he will record a report under section 155, Cr.P.C. The omission to do so is liable to penal as well as disciplinary action under the relevant law and rules.

6. It may be pointed out that a register in which F.I.R. is recorded is known as the First Information Report Register. A register in which substance of the first information report is to be entered is known as the Station Diary (Roznamcha). For further details, rule 22.45 of the Police Rules, 1934 is referred to. How to enter a complaint in the first Information Register, Rules 24.1 and 24.5 of the Police Rules, 1934 are referred to.

7. In view of the above discussion, the S.H.O. is directed to register an F.I.R., if the information reported to him by the respondent No.2, disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. The S.H.O./ Investigating Officer is further directed to investigate the same as I required under section 156, Cr.P.C. to be read with rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934, or proceed under section 157, Cr.P.C. as the case may be. With the above observations, this writ petition is, disposed of. N.H.Q./T-5/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.