P L D 1988 Lahore 714 (PLP)

The constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 19731s maintained with the prayer that a direction be issued to the respondent S.H.O. for registration of a criminal case on the allegations set out in it so that . he may proceed against the culprits in accordance with the law.

2. Pursuant to the last order, the respondent has put in his written‑reply which is accompanied by photostats of two applications of the petitioner which she had respectively addressed to the Inspector of Police, Nawan Kot Police Station, Lahore bearing the date 13‑7‑1988 and to the S. S. P. Lahore who had sent the same over to the S. P. , City for report. It is stated in the written‑reply that the allegations made in the two petitions were investigated and found false so that there was not discovered anything cognizable by the police to have taken place. In this context., he has also pointed out some disparity in the two applications with regard to the narration of the alleged incident. It is uncontrovertible that there exist some very vital differences in the reproduction of the material particulars of the alleged incident in the two applications but, when required to explain the matter, the, petitioner has while admitting before me that the first‑mentioned petition has been handwritten by her, clearly disowned the last‑mentioned application which, though not dated itself, bears some stamps with numbers entered therein on the dates ranging from 28th July, 1988 to the 3rd of August with regard to its being routed down for report. It is difficult to accept this application to be a mere concoction. Be this as it may, the version contained even in the first‑mentioned application sharply conflicts with the averments contained in para 5 of this writ petition to the effect that her husband had got annoyed and while leaving the house he took away the valuable articles mentioned therein which include some cash and a total of 18 tolas of ornaments. There is not even a casual mention of anyone else made in the writ petition in the context of removal of those articles but in her above‑referred application dated 13‑7‑1988 she has mentioned that seven other persons were also accompanying her husband at that time, two of whom had searched the house and were about to take away numerous articles when she resisted and was physically belaboured but in the course of struggle she succeeded in securing the keys of a motor‑cycle which was left behind by the party at the time of fleeing. Thus, the version of the petitioner becomes incapable of inspiring confidence. Learned counsel, however, contends, that irrespective. of the truth or falsity of her allegations the respondent had a legal obligation laid on him under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to record in the relevant register the information given to him with regard to the commission Of a cognizable offence and in not registering the case on the information given by the petitioner, the respondent has failed to do the duty enjoined by the law and hence a direction deserves to issue to him to accordingly register a criminal case. He has sought to support his contention. with reference to Sh. Naseem Ahmad v. Deputy Inspector‑ General of Police, Sargodha, etc. 1985 P Cr. L J 906 wherein such a direction was issued on the basis merely of a concession made by the learned Advocate‑ General. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. reads:‑ "

154. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer incharge of police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf." No doubt, the section is couched in mandatory terms so far as, the recording of information is concerned but the significant pre requisite is ‑ that the information must relate to the commission of a cognizable offence or, in other words, it must disclose that a cognizable offence has been committed and not merely that there may be an allegation or an apprehension with regard to its commission. It seems that the application of this section would not get attracted to an information whereabout it may be possible to be said on the very A face of the things, without making any elaborate investigation, that such an offence has not been committed. The governing consideration appears to be the actual commission, and not merely an. alleged commission, of a cognizable offence. Thus, it does not seem possible to uphold the contention of the learned counsel which is bound td stumble for the additional reason that the, respondent‑officer has reached the unmistaken conclusion that no cognizable offence, as alleged, has been committed. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Haji Muhammad Khan v. Ch. Khizar Hayat and 3 others P L D 1977 Lah. 424 that section 157 of the Cr.P.C. gives a discretion to a police officer to refuse to investigate certain cases. It is obvious that the relief prayed in this case will on that account get frustrated and does not, hence, deserve in the circumstances to be provided to the petitioner.

4. Irrespective of the foregoing, the question of adequacy of alternate remedy, as has been discussed in the afore‑cited case oil Haji Muhammad Khan, and also of the petitioner's locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction stand in the way of her succeeding herein. Article 199 of the Constitution provides that the power thereunder can be invoked by an aggrieved person. It is well‑settled that a person can beheld as aggrieved only when a legal right has been denied to him. I cannot lay my hand upon any law which may have given a legal right to the petitioner to get a criminal case registered against anyone that she may like, on the basis of such allegations as she may choose to make. Even the learned counsel has not pointed out any law conferring such a right on the petitioner who has, therefore, to be held to be lacking the locus standi for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. For ‑the foregoing reasons., this writ petition is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H.S.287/L Petition dismissed.