P L D 1996 Lahore 398 (PLP)

The petitioner through this petition under Article 199 of Constitution seeks direction that Inspector‑General of Police, Islamabad; S Superintendent of Police, Islamabad and Superintendent of Police, Islamabad respectively respondents No.1, 2 and 3 be ordered to register cases sections 365, P.P.C. and 382/342, P.P.C. against the respondents Nos.4 in the concerned police stations.

2. Briefly facts of the writ petition are that oil 2‑2‑199.~ at about 3‑00 tile petitioner alongwith his two sons were coming back from Jandal Comp pay instalments of tractor were forcibly picked up by respondents Nos. 5, an amount ‑of Rs.47,000 was forcibly removed from the pocket o petitioner by the respondents and were confined in the Police Station Bar by respondents Nos.4 and 5; allegedly he was confined in the Havalat without any report from 2‑2‑1995 to 12‑2‑1995; on 12‑2‑1995 the petitioner was inter , rogated in connection with investigation of case F.I.R. No.6 dated 18‑1‑1995 under section 392, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Bharacow; on 19‑2‑1995 his physical remand was taken for two days and ultimately being found innocent was discharged on 22‑2‑1995; out of Rs.47,000 aforementioned only Rs.2,000 were returned by the respondents Nos.4 and 5 to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner moved an application to respondents Nos. I and 3 respectively for the registration of the case against respondents Nos.4 and 5 being disappointed from the respondents, filed this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to political rivalry with local elected representatives and due to involvement of his son in case F.I.R. No,168/93 under section 302/452, P.P.C. with Police Station Aabpara was disgraced and insulted by the respondents Nos.4 and 5; the police officials are duty bound to register the case when the commission of a cognizable offence is made out.

5. The learned counsel for the State frankly conceded that the petitioner was arrested on 19‑2‑1995 in case F.I.R. No.6/95 registered under section 392, P.P.C.; 17 Haraba Police Station, Kohsar, Islamabad, under section 54, Cr.P.C. Keeping in view of his criminal background but was discharged being innocent, further vehemently contended that the allegations levelled against the respondents are mala fide, concocted and to blackmail the police officials as his son has been declared proclaimed offender in case under section 302, P.P.C.

6. Admittedly the petitioner's son, namely, Javed Akhtar who has been declared proclaimed offender in the aforementioned case under section 302/452, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Aabpara, Islamabad is still at large; the petitioner himself has criminal background being involved in cases pertaining to purchase/sale of illicit weapons and narcotics and even was convicted in various cases; his sons are also hardened criminals as are Involved in so many cases as per list attached to the parawise comments submitted by the respondents. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non registration of a case on the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, merely on the ground that the complainant has a criminal background is unwarranted as the police officers are under statutory obligation to enter it in the prescribed register and relied upon cases Muhammad Anwar, Barrister‑at‑Law v. The Station House Officer, Civil Lines. Police Station, Lahore and another PLD 1972 Lahore 493, Sh. Naseem Ahmad v. Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha, etc., 1985 PCr.LJ 906, Nazir Ahmad v. Khushi Muhammad and 2 others 1974 PCr.LJ 579 Lahore and Tika Khan v. S.H.O. 1994 PCr.LJ 1333, wherein the dictum laid down is that the police officer is bound to receive a complaint when it is preferred to him or when the commission of a cognizable offence is reported to him orally, he is bound to take down the complaint; if he does not incorporate in the register a complaint so made, he fails to perform a statutory duty as a public servant, and, therefore, renders himself to be dealt with by his superior officers for neglect of duty.

7. It is well‑settled principle that law does not ' permit police officers to detain persons against whom they have reasonable grounds to believe that they are criminally liable without formally showing their arrest in police cuitody and arrest without showing it in police diary tantamounts to illegal detention and certainly would call for registration of case against concerned persons under section 342, P.P.C.

8. The dictum laid down in the supra cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case in hand as the facts are quite distinguishable; firstly because the writ petition has been filed on 24‑10‑1995 after a lapse of 8 months; application for registration of a case against the respondents Nos.* and 5 was received by 'the respondent No.3 on 17‑10‑1995; i.e. 15 days after the filing of the writ petition in hand; in spite of summons by the Jand Police through "Hukam Nama Talbies" the petitioner did not appear at the police station to substantiate the allegations regarding his removal by respondents Nos.4 and 5; there is nothing on record from which it could be verified that in fact the petitioner had approached the respondents Nos.1 and 2 for registration of case; even if the plea of learned counsel is accepted that the petitioner moved applications on 24‑2‑1995; 12‑3‑1995 and on 24‑2‑1995 before the respondents Nos.1 to 3 respectively; it is not understandable why kept quiet for such a time while he was deprived of Rs.45,000 and was humiliated by the respondents, 1

9. There is no cavil with the proposition that it is the statutory duty of the police to investigate into the commission of a cognizable offence on the basis of a report having been made to that effect. Reporting the commission of a cognizable. offence to the police is not only the method for moving the machinery of law into motion, An adequate remedy is available by resorting to section 190, Cr.P,C. It was for this reason that in case Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another 1975 SCMR 149 it was held by their Lordships that the High Court is under no obligation to order the registration of a case especially where the entire evidence to prove the alleged offence is in possession of the complainant, a complaint under section 190(a), Cr.P.C. would be an adequate remedy.

10. The writ petition has been filed with a delay of 8 months which is hit by laches. Even otherwise the petitioner has got alternative remedy. For the E abovementioned reasons, I find that there is not merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./S‑15/L Petition dismissed.