2010 PLP 201 (YLR)

MUNIB AKHTAR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident as narrated in paras 3 to 8 of the petition took place on 23-8-2009 in which proposed accused allegedly committed the offence as stated therein. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner tried to have an F.I.R. registered but the S.H.O. of Police Station refused to do so and he was thereafter forced to make an application under sections 22-A&B Cr.PC. before learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur. Learned Sessions Judge called for the report from the S.H.O. of Police Station, Ranipur and on the basis of such report concluded that no incident of robbery having been committed by the proposed accused nor the applicant having come to the Police Station for registration of an F.I.R., dismissed the application. Learned counsel submits that present petition has been filed in light of these circumstances. Learned counsel in support of his petition submits that if from the report of a complaint, cognizable offence is made out, it is mandatory obligation of the concerned police authority to register the same under section 154, Cr.P.C. and if the complaint is found to be false, frivolous or vexatious then law provides that suitable action can be taken against the complainant for having wrongly invoked the law and having abused the same. He accordingly prayed that direction to given that the respondents act in accordance with law and register an F.I.R. in terms of section 154, Cr.P.C. Mr. Junejo, learned counsel for the proposed accused submitted that present petition was misconceived since the remedy, if any, against the order of learned Sessions Judge dated 12-9-2009 was by way of a revision or application under S.561-A Cr.P.C. learned counsel submitted that the matter had been thoroughly examined by and before the learned Sessions Judge and the application of present petitioner had been rightly rejected by him. The proposed accused were respectable persons in different diverse occupation and the petitioner was only a trouble maker who apparently abused the process of law and against whom several cases are pending before different criminal Courts. He prayed that present petition be dismissed. Learned A.A.-G. supported the submissions of learned counsel for the proposed accused and additionally also submitted that in any case if the present petitioner has any grievance at all he could file private complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereby invoke the process of law. In so far the maintainability of the petition is concerned, it is well settled law that if the proper forum has been invoked by citing wrong provisions of law, that does not bar the forum for granting relief if a case is made out. From the pleadings it appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that if a report is made of an apparent cognizable offence then under section 154, Cr.P.C. relevant police authorities are bound to take action in terms of the said section and conduct proper investigation. If it is found that the complainant is false, action can be taken against the complainant. In view of this legal position this petition is allowed and the S.H.O. Police Station, Ranipur is directed to take proper legal action in terms of section 154, Cr.P.C. on the complaint of the petitioner who will appear before him within 7 days and if he fails to do so then S.H.O. of Police Station, Ranipur shall dismiss any complaint made by the petitioner. Furthermore, if it is found out after proper investigation strictly in accordance with law that the complaint filed by the petitioner has no merit, then concerned S.H.O. or other police officer, as the case may be, is directed to immediately take appropriate action against the complainant/petitioner for having wrongly invoked the process of law and abused the same. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. H.B.T./M-199/K Order accordingly.