Duty of police

2018 PCrLJ 1230 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 156InvestigationDuty of police

Police was duty bound to collect some positive evidence either in support of the incident or in the negation of the same

If some concrete evidence were collected by the police to negate the happening of the incident, then it could be said that the reported incident was maliciously false.

2018 YLRN 275 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 154 & 155Penal Code ( XLV of 1860 ), S. 182Registration of FIRDuty of policeScope

Applicant contended that a letter for medical treatment of the injured was issued on the very day of incident but police failed to record his statement and register FIR against respondents including police officials involved in the occurrence

Respondents contended that they were not in league with police officials rather police officials performed their duties with regard to FIR already registered against the accused including the applicant

Validity

Sections 154 & 155, Cr.P.C. nowhere stipulated that police was restrained from registering FIR

Police was duty bound to reduce the information relating to commission of a cognizable offence into writing under S.154, Cr.P.C. or otherwise act under S.155, Cr.P.C.

If the informant gave false information, there was provision under S.182. P.P.C. to come into force

When a thing was required to be done by law in a particular manner it should be done in that manner or not at all

Station House Officer of concerned Police Station was duty bound to record the statement of the complainant under S.154, Cr.P.C. in accordance with law, if from the contents thereof a cognizable offence was made out

If such information was found to be false during course of investigation, legal action could be initiated against the complainant

Station House Officer or any other official had no authority to refuse to record complainant's statement and to register FIR in a cognisable offence

First Information Report against private persons by the police, in the present case, had been registered promptly but, on the other hand, report against police personnel and private party as per version of the applicant was denied

Assertion narrated by the applicant was either correct or incorrect, but the same could not be said as false without any investigation

High Court directed the SHO to record the statement of applicant and if a cognizable offence was made out, register FIR forthwith

Criminal miscellaneous application was allowed accordingly.

2017 YLRN 329 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 35Protection of marriageProtection against harassment when couple contracted marriage without consent of their eldersDuty of police

To marry was a right guaranteed under Art.35 of the Constitution of Pakistan and in the circumstances when couple contracted marriage with their consent and free will but without the consent of their elders, no one should cause harassment to the couple

Police department had to see that they acted in a manner which advanced the dictates of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was disposed of with direction to official respondents to conduct themselves in accordance with law and provide necessary legal protection to petitioner and her husband in the manner that no one shall cause them harassment

Order accordingly.

2013 PCrLJ 429 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6, 7 & 23Application for transfer of case, dismissal ofTerrorism, act ofProofDuty of policeScope

F.I.R. was registered against the accused (Station House Officer) on the allegation that he had illegally detained a person at a private place and at the time of recovery proceedings he used weapons against the raiding Magistrate

Accused was aggrieved of cognizance taken by Anti-Terrorism Court and sought transfer of the same to court of ordinary jurisdiction

Validity

Accused in violation of law kept detenues in illegal custody at private place though he was under legal obligation to act strictly in accordance with law, which prima facie proved that he acted contrary to law hence committed offence of malfeasance by detaining private person in his custody

Accused also caused serious deterrence in legal duty of Magistrate by making direct firing and snatched detenues from the custody of Magistrate

Manner of offences committed by accused was sufficient to hold that prima facie he was guilty of committing serious offence of terrorism

Police officers were always supposed to act in aid of innocence as powers, jurisdiction and authority vested in them was never meant to exploit the same and they had been entrusted sacred duty of creating a sense of security and peace among individuals while creating a sense of terror and fear among criminals

Accused failed to make out a case where interference of High Court was required and he even failed to point out any illegality in the orders passed by Trial Court, which were otherwise legal, well justified and maintained under law

Application for transfer of case was dismissed in circumstances.