1988 P Cr (PLP)

Art. 199--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 156, 202, 203 & 204--Registration of criminal case against petitioner on complaint- Charge of taking bribe in the name of Magistrate--Such Magistrate after recording statements of both complainant and appellant directing S.H.O. to register criminal case against appellant--Constitutional jurisdiction against registration of criminal case--Where a Magistrate did not take cognizance of matter in his judicial capacity as a complaint case, but same was referred to him in his inquisitorial capacity pertaining to his personal involvement, his direction for registration of a criminal case after recording versions of both complainant and appellant, held, could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction High Court--Constitutional petition against registration of case being .misconceived was dismissed in circumstances. 1979 S C M R 200 distinguished. Munir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner. Petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR No. 388 dated 4-10-1987 registered at Police Station Samundri, Faisalabad, under section 165-A, P.P.C. under the directions of respondent No.2 The facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.1 moved an application (Annex. A) to respondent No.2, praying that an inquiry be conducted against the petitioner who had procured a sum of Rs.30,000 in the name of respondent No.2 as a bribe for getting his son off the hook in a murder case. Respondent No.2 instead of acting emotionally adopted a rational course by sending over the petitioner, lest it may be a mischievous application. Respondent No.2 recorded the statement of both the petitioner as well as that of respondent No.1 and having come to the conclusion that prima facie a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, made an endorsement on that very application directing respondent No.4 to register a case in accordance with law. Respondent No.4 instead of registering the case referred the matter to the Assistant District Attorney, who opined that respondent No.1 once having taken cognizance of the matter as a complaint case, cannot under the law refer the matter to the police for registration of a case in this behalf. Respondent No.2 on being apprised of this situation issued notice to respondent No.4 as well as to the Assistant District Attorney, as tc why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court. However, with the intervention of the District Magistrate (Additional) Faisalabad, this matter was resolved and case was accordingly registered, being the subject-matter of the F.I.R. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once respondent No.2 had taken cognizance of the matter, then he was obliged to proceed with the matter as a complaint case as contemplated under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure and could have not, under the law, directed the S.H.O. to register the case. For this he has placed reliance on 1979 S C M R

200. I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no cavil with the legal proposition enunciated in the above-referred judgment. However, I am afraid, that is not applicable on the peculiar facts of this case. Respondent No.2 did not take cognizance of the matter in his judicial capacity, as a complaint case as postulated in Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was referred to him in his inquisitorial capacity. Since the allegations pertained to personal involvement of respondent No.2, therefore, he deemed it appropriate and expedient to ascertain i as to whether or not the application is mischievous or motivated out of ulterior considerations. Therefore, he directed the petitioner to appear before him and got his version recorded, wherefrom he formulated an opinion that prima facie a cognizable offence has been made out. Consequently, he directed respondent No.4 to register the case. This petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. A . A . / A-206 / L Petition dismissed.