1991 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM RAIDER — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION QAIMPUR, TEHSIL HASILPUR, DISTRICT BAHAWALPUR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM RAIDER — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION QAIMPUR, TEHSIL HASILPUR, DISTRICT BAHAWALPUR and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM RAIDER — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION QAIMPUR, TEHSIL HASILPUR, DISTRICT BAHAWALPUR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Pirzada Muhammad Afzal Nizami for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 452, 392, 344 & 351
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.154
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199
Police Officers alongwith 14/15 Constables trespassed into house of petitioner, caught hold of him, his mother, his wife and other women present in the house, broke locks of room and forcibly took away house articles, Rs.15,000 motor-cycle and also tortured them
Sub- Inspector of Police stated that close relatives of petitioner were required in criminal cases so he raided the petitioner's house and took away various articles including bed-sheets, cash and motor-cycle of the petitioner as suspected property
Police officials did not make any report at local police station regarding their arrival or intended raid
No police official from the local police station was associated
Raiding Police took the articles of petitioner on the pretext of those being stolen property
No departure report was made by the raiding party at the police station
Report of seizure of property was not made to Area Magistrate
Entry into petitioner's house and search thereof thus were quite; illegal
Mandatory provisions of 5.165, Cr.P.C. were not complied with-- Search-warrant from Ilaqa Magistrate was not obtained
No reason was recorded in police file for not obtaining search-warrants
No respectable of the locality was associated with the raid on the house of petitioner
Copy of the record made under subsection (1) of 5.165, Cr.P.C. was not sent to the Magistrate nor list of property recovered by the Police officials was furnished
Police officials under the fanciful colour of their authority thus had committed offence under Ss.452, 392, 344 & 351, P.P.C.
Superintendent of Police was directed to immediately get . a case registered under the offences on the basis of the complaint
Police officials were directed to bring back the seized property and deposit the same with Area Magistrate.
Judgment & Decree
Through this Constitutional petition, Ghulam Haider seeks direction to S.H.O., Police Station, Qaimpur, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur, for the registration of case against Ateeq Butt S.I. and Syed Muntazir Shah Moharrir, respondents Nos.2 and 3.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 1-3-1991, respondents Nos.2 and 3 alongwith 14/1S Constables trespassed into the house of Ghulam Haider, petitioner, caught hold of him, his mother, his wife and other women present in the house, broke the locks of the room and forcibly took away household articles, Rs.15,600 of the petitioner and his motor-cycle and also tortured them.
3. Muhammad Ateeq Butt and Syed Muntazir Shah, respondents Nos.2 and 3, have voluntarily appeared although they were not summoned and only S.H.O., Police Station Qaimpur, was summoned for today. Ateeq Butt S.I./respondent stated that the close relatives of Ghulam Hiader petitioner were required in criminal cases, so he raided the house of the petitioner situate within the limits of Police Station Qaimpur and took away various articles including bed-sheets, Rs.12,000 and motor-cycle of the petitioner as suspected stolen property.
4. After hearing the S.H.O., Police Station Qaimpur, respondent No.1, and the other respondents, namely, Ateeq Butt S.I. and Syed Muntazir Shah Moharrir, I find that the entire action taken by respondents Nos.2 and 3 was illegal inasmuch as they did not make any report at Police Station Qaimpur, with regard to their arrival or intended raid on the house of Ghulam Haider petitioner. They did not associate with them any police official of the Police Station Qaimpur. Except the clothes, which the persons present in the house was wearing they took away all articles' including clothes, bed-sheets, cash and motor cycle of the petitioner on the pretext of stolen property. They did not make any departure report at the Police Station. They did not report the seizure of the property to the Illaqa Magistrate. Their entry into the house and search thereof was also quite illegal. They did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 165, Cr.P.C. They did not obtain search-warrants from the Ilaqa Magistrate and also did not record any reason in the police file for not obtaining the search-warrants. No respectable person of the locality was associated with the raid on the house of the petitioner. They did not send the copy of the record made under subsection (1) of section 165, Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate. They did not furnish the list of the property removed by them from the house of the petitioner. I feel that under the fanciful colour of their authority as Police Officers, the respondents have committed robbery.
5. In this view of the matter, there can be no two opinions that Ateeq Butt S.I., Incharge Police Post Karampur, and Syed Muntazir Shah Moharrir, Police Post Karampur, Tehsil Mailsi, have committed the offences under sections 452, 392, 342 and 351, P.P.C. It is also a clear-cut case of the misuse of the provisions of section 550, Cr.P.C.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur, will immediately get a case registered under these sections against Ateeq Butt S.I. and Syed Muntazir Shah, Moharrir, respondents Nos.2 and 3, at Police Station Qaimpur, on the basis of complaint mark `A'. He will depute responsible officer not below the rank of D.S.P. to investigate the case. The D.S.P. so appointed will report the progress of the case to the Additional Registrar of Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, within two weeks.
7. Instead of depositing the property seized by them from the house of Ghulam Haider petitioner in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, the respondents took away the same to Karampur, Tehsil Mailsi. Ateeq Butt S.I., respondent No.l, is present in Court. He is directed to bring back the property seized by him on 1-3-1991 from the house of Ghulam Haider and deposit the same with Ilaqa Magistrate, Hasilpur, within three days from today, otherwise serious view of the matter will be taken. 7-A. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent of Police Vehari, for information and action, which he deems fit. MA.K./G-459/L Petition accepted.