2004 PLP 868 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 420/466/468/471/148/149‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.154‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) and 199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Quashing of F.I.R.‑‑‑Petitioner (one of the accused persons) being a public servant sought quashing of F.I.R. on the ground that only Anti‑Corruption Establishment was competent to register criminal case against him and investigate the same‑‑‑High Court dismissed Constitutional petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Officer‑in‑charge of police station had power under S.154. Cr.P.C., to record F.I.R. on receiving information disclosing commission of cognizable offence‑‑‑Offence under S.420, P.P.C., was at least one such cognizable offence‑‑‑If presumed for sake of arguments that such F.I.R. could be registered only by Anti- Corruption Establishment, even then same was protected by law declared in the case "State v. Bashir and others" PLD 1997 SC 408‑‑‑No exception could be taken to the impugned order‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave. State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 rel. Syed Nisar Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th April, 2002. KHALIL‑UR‑REHMAN RAMDAY, J.‑‑‑One Ch. Khurshid Hussain informed the S.S.P. of Faisalabad inter‑alia, that his daughter Mst. Samina was married to one Kamal‑ud‑din on 28‑9‑1995 who went away to London on 1‑7‑1999, on a visit visa; that the said Kamal‑ud‑din contracted a second marriage in England; that the applicant's daughter informed the Home Secretary of U.K. about the earlier marriage of the said Kamal‑ud‑din with her; that in order to defend himself against any possible action in U.K., the said Kamal‑ud‑din prepared a forged divorce notice dated 2‑8‑1997 with the connivance of one Yasin who was the Secretary of the concerned Union Council and others and a fake certificate of divorce dated 28‑7‑2000 was also prepared. It was alleged that in the circumstances the said Kamal‑ud‑din, Yasin and others had committed offences punishable under sections 420/466/468/471/148/149 of the P.P.C. Finding this application to be an information relating to the commission of cognizable offences, the said S.S.P. directed the concerned S.H.O. to record an F.I.R. and to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Consequently an F.I.R. bearing No.109 was registered at Police Station Sargodha Road, Faisalabad on 8‑2‑2002.

2. Muhammad Yasin accused approached the Lahore High Court with Writ Petition No.5370 of 2002 praying for the quashment of the said F.I.R. essentially on the ground that since the said Yasin accused/petitioner was a public servant being the Secretary of the concerned Union Council, therefore, it was only the Anti‑Corruption Establishment which was competent to register a criminal case and to investigate the same and that the impugned F.I.R. was an F.I.R. which was illegal and of no legal effect. Through an order dated 3‑4‑2002 a learned Single Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed the said petition. Hence this petition.

3. It is not deniable that the provisions of section 154 of the Cr.P.C. authorized an officer incharge of a police station to record an F. I. R. if information was conveyed to him which disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. It is also not denied that at least the offence punishable under section 420 of the P.P.C. was one such cognizable offence. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments, that the F.I.R. in the present case could be registered only by the A.C.E. even then the F.I.R. in question is protected through the law declared by this Court in the case 'State v. Bashir and others' PLD 1997 SC

408. In this view of the matter no exception could be taken to the impugned order passed by the Lahore High Court. This petition is therefore dismissed. Leave refused. S.A.K./M‑572/S Leave refused.