1995 P Cr (PLP)

G.M. Mughal for Petitioner. Asstt. A.‑G. for Non‑Petitioner The facts as claimed in the petition briefly stated are that petitioner who claims to be a resident of C.M.H. Road, Muzaffarabad, has filed this application seeking direction to the non‑petitioner to register a case against certain accused‑persons. It is alleged that non‑petitioner even though is fully informed about the commission of cognizable offence, on the basis of the report lodged by the petitioner before him on January 25, 1995, yet he did not register the case, against the culprits. Alongwith the petition, the petitioner has filed medical report in respect of his treatment of various injuries which he received allegedly at the hands of his opponents on January 24, 1995.

2. As the matter relates to issue of direction to the non‑petitioner for the registration of the case, as such it is not felt expedient to mention in detail the facts of the case as well as the contents of the report, which the petitioner has allegedly lodged for the registration of the case.

3. The learned' counsel for the petitioner argued that, under the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C., police has no alternative but to register the case; if it is satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. In the present case, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries at the hands of the accused‑persons. He remained admitted in the hospital for a considerable time for treatment. Therefore, it was imperative for the non‑petitioner to register the case on his complaint and conduct investigation in accordance with law.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General, on the other hand, repudiated the grounds taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that a counter‑case' has been registered and the police is conducting' investigation in the matter, therefore, there was 'no justification to register the case on the complaint made by the present petitioner. According to him, he has been informed by S.H.O. that report of the petitioner has been mentioned in police diary.

5. I have taken into consideration the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the, parties and have also perused the file.

6. In the light of provisions contained in section 154, Cr.P.C. it was mandatory for the S.H.O. to reduce into writing the report of the petitioner if it was in respect of a cognizable offence. In the instant case, the accused petitioner is involved in a murder case. He insists that police should conduct investigation keeping in view his version to the incident. There is no quarrel that version given against the petitioner describes the case of the complainant party against him as to how the offence was Committed. The petitioner claims that version given by his opponents is incorrect. He wants that the case should be investigated by keeping in view his version. Under the provisions of law, it is open to an aggrieved person to file a complaint or report the matter to the concerned police station. There is no barrier in the way of the police not to register the case on the counter‑version if commission of a cognizable offence is made out. In that case, the police has got ho option but to register the case as laid down by section 15‑1, Cr.P.C. In such like, case, when the police refused to register the case, based on counter‑version of the accused, the matter came up for consideration before the Lahore High Court in a case titled Sawant v. S.H.O., Kasoor PLD 1975 Lah.

733. The controversy vas finally resolved by observing as under:‑‑ "In my view, the correct legal procedure for the police should have been to record the F.I.R. containing the counter‑version and to have investigated it. If they found that the evidence adduced by the petitioner did not sustain the charge they could have submitted a report to the Magistrate for cancellation of the case. It was held by the learned Chief Justice in Ch. Ataullah v. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmed Kahloon and 3 others 1973 PCr.LJ 69 that even if police have made investigation in a case with reference to the particular evidence produced by one party, another report with reference to the same incident is not barred. I respectfully follow this dictum. I also say with great respect that the language of section 154, Cr.P.C. is imperative and a Police Officer cannot dub the counter‑version as false without first investigating the matter. His duty is to make investigation. I, therefore, allow both the petitions and‑ direct the S.H.O. to register a report at the instance of Sawant petitioner and to make investigation therein according to law."

7. Needless to state here that after the investigation, if the police comes to the conclusion that precious time of police was wasted by moving a false report, the police can resort to the provisions contained in section 182, A.P.C. The petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. N.H.Q./13/Sh.C./AJ&K Petition allowed.