2011 PLP 1574 (YLR)

SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.

Through the instant petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for passing a direction to respondent No.3 for recording her statement as well as of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, which disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and thereafter registration of a criminal case against the accused persons. The petitioner has also prayed for passing a direction to respondent No.1 for initiating departmental proceedings against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for not complying with the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lahore, dated 12-2-2010, 28-4-2010, 5-5-2010, 7-5-2010, 8-5-2010, 12-5-2010 and 17-5-2010. The petitioner has further solicited the issuance of a direction to respondents Nos.2 and 3 not to pressurize the petitioner for entering into a compromise with the culprits or to withdraw from the instant proceedings.

2. Respondent No.3/S.H.O., Police Station Sherakot, Lahore, has submitted a report wherein it is mentioned that on an earlier application of the present petitioner bearing No.7443/SPO, dated 1-7-2010, an inquiry was conducted and the allegations of the petitioner were found to be false.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 was bound to record the statement of the petitioner and taking further proceedings as provided in section 154, Cr.P.C. He argued that no inquiry or investigation could be conducted by a police official prior to the registration of a case.

4. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that on an earlier application of the present petitioner/ Mst. Saima Bibi, the police official after an inquiry, came to the conclusion that no cognizable offence has been committed by the accused. He further submitted that the version of the present petitioner was found to be incorrect.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. No doubt, the Officer Incharge of Police Station cannot embark upon an inquiry or investigation in order to find out the truthfulness or otherwise of the contents of an application or information, which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence prior to the registration of a criminal case as envisaged in section 154, Cr.P.C. However, it is a settled proposition of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. In this case, it has transpired from the report of respondent No.3/S.H.O., Police Station Sherakot, Lahore, that the present petitioner took the house of one Mushtaq Ahmad on rent, who got the same vacated after receiving an information regarding the involvement of the petitioner in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.33 of 2010, dated 14-1-2010, under section 371-A and B, P.P.C., registered in Police Station Sherakot, Lahore. The concerned S.H.O., also reported that the present petitioner/Mst. Saima Bibi could not produce any proof regarding the alleged commission of the cognizable offence by Mustaq Ahmad and others. Respondent No.3 in his report has categorically submitted that the contents of the application of the petitioner were not supported with any evidence, which disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. He further clarified that the allegations of the present petitioner were not found to be correct.

7. In view of the report submitted by respondent No.3/S.H.O., Police Station Sherakot, Lahore, it is established that the information provided by the petitioner through her earlier application did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and as such, no direction could be issued to S.H.O., Police Station Sherakot, Lahore, for registration of a criminal case against Mushtaq Ahmad and others, in the Constitutional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a private complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction.

8. In view of above, the instant Constitutional Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. H.B.T./S-61/L Petition dismissed.