2023 PLP 701 (YLR)

ATHAR MINALLAH, C.J.

The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as the "Constitution"] assailing letters, dated 29.06.2021, 01.09.2021 and 09.03.2022. They have also sought a writ to quash the FIRs registered by the Federal Investigation Agency [hereinafter referred to as the "Agency"] pursuant to the aforementioned impugned letters.

2. The Managing Committee of Jammu Kashmir Housing Society [hereinafter referred to as the "Society"] had filed complaints before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Islamabad Capital Territory, The latter had initiated proceedings and thereafter complaints were filed and pursuant thereto eleven criminal cases were registered at the Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad. The details of the FIRs have been mentioned in the petitions. The Superintendent of Police (Operations), Islamabad Capital Territory vide impugned letters, dated 29.06.2021, 01.09.2021 and 09.03.2022 had purportedly transferred the already registered FIRs to the Agency. On receiving the report, the Agency registered fresh FIRs under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1974"].

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that; the Superintendent of Police (Operations) was not vested with jurisdiction to transfer the FIRs otherwise than in the manner prescribed under the Police Rules, 1934 [hereinafter referred to as the "Police Rules"]; they have referred to clauses 25.4 to 25.7 in support of their contention that the manner for transferring criminal cases from one police station to the other has been explicitly prescribed,: the Agency is governed under the Act of 1974; pursuant to powers conferred under section 9 of the Act of 1974 the Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiries and Investigations) Rules, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2002"] have been notified; the aforementioned rules have prescribed the procedure for initiation of action by the Agency and registration of criminal cases; reliance has been placed on the cases "Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State" [PLD 2018 SC 595], "Justice Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, justice and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad" [PLD 2019 SC 509], "Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami" [2007 SCMR 818].

4. The learned counsel for the Society, on the other hand, has argued that the Agency was competent to register the criminal cases under the Act of 1974; the competent authority has notified the police station of the Agency; the FIRs were competently registered; reliance has been placed on the cases "Muhammad Yaseen v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Islamabad" [2013 PCr.LJ 137], "Kareem Khan v. Inspector General of Police, Islamabad Capital Territory" [PLD 2018 Islamabad 108], "Federal Employees Cooperative Housing Society v. Director General, Federal Investigation Agency" [2019 PCr.LJ 594], and an unreported judgment, dated 13.10.2020, delivered in W.P. No. 1602/2019, titled Qaiser Riaz Cheema, etc. v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Islamabad, etc."

5. The learned Deputy Attorney General and the learned State Counsel have adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent Society.

6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused with their able assistance.

7. The questions raised before this Court for adjudication are; whether the Superintendent of Police (Operations), Islamabad Capital Territory was empowered and competent to transfer the cases registered at Police Station Tarnol (Islamabad) in disregard to the procedure prescribed under Rule 25.7 of the Police Rules; whether the Agency could have registered fresh criminal cases without complying with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 2002; whether registration of criminal cases by the Agency was in violation of the law laid down by the august Supreme Court in the case reported as "Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State" [PLD 2018 SC 595].

8. Admittedly, before purportedly transferring the cases to the Agency, the requirements prescribed under clauses 24.4 to 25.7 of the Police Rules had not been complied with. Moreover, the Agency also did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1974 read with the Rules of 2002. Admittedly, no inquiry was conducted by the Agency and the criminal cases were registered by the latter upon the dictation of the Superintendent of Police (Operations). The registration of the criminal cases by the Agency in a perfunctory manner besides being in violation of the Act of 1974 read with the Rules of 2002 was also contrary to the principles and law laid down by the august Supreme Court in the case titled "Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State" [PLD 2018 SC 595].

9. For the above reasons, it is declared that the criminal cases registered by the Agency were without lawful authority and jurisdiction and, therefore, they are hereby quashed. However, letters, dated 29.06.2021, 01.09.2021 and 09.03.2022, received by the Agency from the Superintendent of Police (Operations) shall be treated as complaints. The Agency after concluding the inquiry proceedings, if satisfied that offences are made out, shall be at liberty to register criminal cases as contemplated in the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 2002. Likewise, the Superintendent of Police (Operations) will be expected to follow the procedure and meet the requirements, inter alia, prescribed under clause 25.7 of the Police Rules.

10. The petitions are, therefore, allowed and disposed of in the above terms. SA/218/Isl. Petitions allowed.