P L D 1990 Lahore 428 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, ACTG. CJ.‑‑The facts are that polling for the election of the office‑bearers of the Chamber of Commerce, Gujranwala was held on 5‑3‑1990 which ended in rowdism. Muhammad Abdullah son of Muhammad Hayat vide F.I.R. No. 130 of 1990 got a criminal case registered against appellant No. 2 and others, with the Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala on the allegations that they abused the complainant, threatened to kill him; assaulted Ch. Muhammad Aslam President Chamber of Commerce and others, forcibly took away one ballot box and disappeared in Vehicle No. GAE 8818. The appellants also approached the S.H.O., the respondent herein, to get a criminal case registered against the members of the rival party but instead of registration of a case, merely report No.15 dated 5‑3‑1990 was entered in the daily diary, a copy whereof is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'A'. Its contents as briefly reproduced in the body of the writ petition, are:‑‑ "That the polling for election for the office‑bearers of the Gujranwala Chamber of Commerce was in progress on 5‑3‑1990 in a peaceful atmosphere. The rival group apprehending their defeat in the said was contesting the said elections for a Member of the Executive Body of the Chamber of Commerce. The petitioners resisted the casting of bogus votes. Ch. Muhammad Aslam and Haji Muhammad Amin in the company of other accused trespassed into the polling booth. Ch.Muhammad Aslam lifted the ballot box and delivered to Haji Muhammad Amin for taking it alongwith them. On the protest of the petitioners Mian Liaqat, Mian Muhammad Saleem,former President Chamber of Commerce, and others resisting the act of said accused to take away the ballot box with them. Haji Muhammad Aslam, Haji Amin and Abdul Aziz threatened the petitioners to be killed. Wakeel Saeed pulled out his revolver and threatened to kill the person whosoever came in his way. Haji Muhammad Amin and Ch. Muhammad Aslam succeeded to place in their Suzuki vehicle No. GAE 49 the ballot box and drove away, on the protest of the petitioners and others, Ch. Muhammad Aslam, directed his companions to confine the petitioners in the room. Petitioner No.2 and Naeem were confined in a room and it was locked from outside. The petitioner No.2 and Naeem were released from the illegal detention on the intervention of Saif‑ud‑Din Bhatti and Mian Liaqat on the arrival of the Police."

2. The appellants then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the grievance that a cognizable offence having been committed the respondent was duty bound to register a case. A direction was therefore, sought to be issued to him to register a criminal case on the report of the appellants. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 10‑3‑1990, under challenge in this appeal, took the view that the appellants' alleged grievance had already been noted by the police in the case F.I.R.,No.130/90, registered under sections 379, 427 and 506, P.P.C. and therefore, no interference, in extraordinary jurisdiction was called for.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at some length. His contention is that there is no prohibition in law on registration of a case on the basis of a counter‑version of an occurrence. Support for this submission has been solicited from Abdur Rehman v. S.H.O. Police Station (1989 MLD 2698). In this case, a learned Single Judge maintained that where a case pertaining to a particular incident was registered, law enjoins upon police to register counter version and to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. This decision is rested on Akram Ali Shah v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Kasur and 2 others (P.L.D 1979 Lahore 320) and Mst. Gulmarjana v. The State (P L D 1983 Peshawar 228) in which similar view was taken. It has thus, been contended that as the report lodged by appellant No.2 with the S.H.0, disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, he should have registered a case but he merely entered a report in the daily diary. In the submission of the learned counsel, the S.H.O. failed to do what he was required to do, in law.

4. The proceedings recorded by the police on the report Annexure 'A' are not demonstrative of any refusal to register the case and the matter was seemingly, kept under consideration by them. This is amply borne out from:‑‑ It may be observed that section 154, Cr.P.C. deals with the recording of information of cognizable cases and ordains that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, given to the Incharge of a Police Station, shall be reduced into writing by him and its substance entered in a book to be kept in such form, as prescribed by the Provincial Government.

5. A question arises whether the act of entering appellants' report in the daily diary does not conform to the requirements of law and the respondent was bound to record it straightway in the First Information Report Register. In our opinion answer to this question is to be found in Rule 24.1 appearing in Chapter XXIV of the Police Rules 1934 which runs as under:‑‑ "24.‑‑(l) First information how recorded. (i) Sections 154 and 155 Code of Criminal Procedure, provide that every information relating to an offence, whether cognizable or non‑cognizable, shall be recorded in writing by the officer in charge of a police station. The distinction between the form of reports required by the above mentioned two sections has been defined as follows by the Punjab Chief Court (now High Court):‑‑ Every information covered by section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, must be reduced to writing as provided in that section and the substance thereof must be entered in the police station daily diary, which is the book provided for the purpose. It is only information which raises a reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence within the jurisdiction of the police officer to whom it is given, which compels action under section 157, Criminal Procedure Code. (2) With the exception of cases mentioned in rule 24.10 below, in every case in which the Officer‑Incharge of a police station, from information or otherwise, has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under section 156, Criminal Procedure Code, to investigate, he shall enter in full such information or other intelligence as soon as practicable in the First Information Report Register, shall have each copy signed, marked or sealed by the informant if present, shall seal each with the station seal, and shall dispose of the copies in accordance with rule 24.5, and if he abstains from investigation under either of the provisos to section 157 of the Code, he shall submit the copy intended for the Magistrate through the Superintendent. At the same time a reference to such report shall be entered in the Station Diary, register No.11. (3)....... (4) .. It is thus evident that even an information apparently covered by section 154 is first to be entered in the Station Daily Diary and it is only when the Officer Incharge of the police station has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, that he is required to enter such information in the First Information Report Register. It is noteworthy that the word suspicion is preceded by the expression "reason", which would have a reference to the mind of the police officer and excludes the possibility of action founded on vague surmises. Rule 24.2, therefore, calls for a determination by the police officer, dictated by reasons and rested on definite facts. Such determination may be anchored on evaluation of facts stated in the report, reviewing of the circumstances attending the case and intelligence relating to the alleged commission of the offence. Evidence mustered in the course of investigation of the case already registered may also furnish material for such determination. It is to be remembered that this determination should not be equated with investigation undertaken by the police officer after registration of the case. The expression sufficiently indicates that when the appellants rushed to this Court, the matter was still under scrutiny of the S.H.O., who was under a compulsion to proceed according to law. Mention in the DARYAFT HALAAT JAARI HAI of the case registered at the instance of the appellants' rivals, is a part of the factual narration rather than to betray a disinclination of the S.H.O. to entertain the appellants' grievance.

6. In view of the situation obtaining presently, we feel, that the precedents placed before us are much off of the tangent. At this stage there is no valid basis to intervene. Issuance of the direction prayed for is, therefore, declined but for different reasons. This appeal is dismissed in limine. M.B.A./6‑352/L Appeal dismissed.