Registration of case

Petitioners were police officials who were aggrieved of order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace, directing registration of criminal case against them on the complaint of a foreign national while crossing border check post

Validity

Petitioners were members of law enforcement agencies who were under obligation to check and counter check considerable quantum of currency notes carried by immigrant/ complaint on border and were supposed to keenly observe actions of the immigrants

Currency notes in question were seized by petitioners in discharge of their official obligations

Mala fide, ill will and personal vendetta was lacking, rather prima facie petitioners had discharged their official obligations in national interest

High Court observed that it was unwise to proceed the petitioners under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of criminal case against them

High Court set aside order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace passed under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR, as the order was not based on proper appraisal of law on the subject

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Provision of S. 154, Cr.P.C. does not permit police officer to hold a preliminary inquiry before it to ascertain whether information communicated to him is authentic.

Accused and his co-accused brother, who was a stenographer of Sessions Court, were alleged to have prepared a fake order sheet

Sessions Judge after recording statements of accused and co-accused gave directions to the Anti-Corruption Establishment for registration of criminal case against both of them

Legality and propriety

Before lodging of FIR, Anti-Corruption Establishment was to hold an inquiry, for guidance, but the Sessions Judge himself gave orders for lodging of FIR

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the matter was to be remitted by competent authority to the Anti-Corruption Establishment for legal action by the said Establishment

Impugned order of Sessions Judge only to the extent of directing the Anti-Corruption Establishment to register the FIR without formal and independent inquiry at their own was without jurisdiction, lawful authority and as such was set aside

High Court directed that the Anti-Corruption Establishment was to proceed in the matter as per Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 2014, after affording right of audience to the accused and co-accused and all concerned and if commission of any scheduled offence was made out against any public servant and his other accomplice/s, the Anti-Corruption Establishment was to proceed strictly in accordance with law/rules

Constitutional petition was partly allowed accordingly.

Petitioner was a police official who was aggrieved of registration of case against him on basis of directions issued by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace without giving him any notice to appear in proceedings

Validity

Complainant approached Justice of Peace directly and there was nothing on record that he had approached hierarchy of police for registration of F.I.R.

Grounds taken in application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. were whimsical

Complainant was arrested on information of intelligence report of petitioner in theft case wherein incriminating recoveries were effected from him

Application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. was filed by complainant in order to harass and humiliate public servant which was never intention of the Legislature

Element of mala fide was apparent from conduct of complainant

High Court set aside order in question passed by Justice of Peace as same was not in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner was aggrieved of order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace who dismissed application for registration of case on ground that it was dispute of civil nature between the parties and recovery of amount was involved

Validity

Petitioner had initiated action against respondent with specific allegation of snatching of his oil tanker, thereafter respondent reacted and then litigation went on

Proper course for Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was to direct Station House Officer concerned to register FIR and hold impartial investigation and to proceed further in accordance with law as prima facie there was an allegation of commission of cognizable offence

High Court directed the police to register case on basis of complaint filed by petitioner and order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

No illegality or legal infirmity was discernable from order of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to warrant interference by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction

Not incumbent upon police to embark on harassment and arrest of a person against whom even allegation of commission of cognizable offence was levelled simply because that was neither a requirement of law nor a sine qua non for a just and fair investigation

Constitutional Petition was dismissed under circumstances.

Mere registration of case could not be based for conviction in capital offence, where otherwise no strong, confident and corroborative evidence, was available against accused, which made the case of accused that of further inquiry.

Section 20(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was the provision which dealt with dishonest issuance of a cheque towards repayment of a finance or fulfilment of an obligation which was dishonored on presentation

Matter, where cheque was issued to a financial institution and same was dishonored, jurisdiction would lie only with the Banking Court established under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and not before any other court until and unless provided by law by which the financial institution was established

Section 20(6) of the said Ordinance provided that the offences under the Ordinance would be bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable therefore the registration of a criminal case by the local police was not permitted by the law

Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

Section 20(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was the provision which dealt with dishonest issuance of a cheque towards repayment of a finance or fulfilment of an obligation which was dishonored on presentation

Matter, where cheque was issued to a financial institution and same was dishonored, jurisdiction would lie only with the Banking Court established under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and not before any other court until and unless provided by law by which the financial institution was established

Section 20(6) of the said Ordinance provided that the offences under the Ordinance would be bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable therefore the registration of a criminal case by the local police was not permitted by the law

Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

Registration of case/FIR was independent right of an aggrieved person who could report the matter to the in-charge of concerned police station, who was bound under the provision of S. 154, Cr.P.C. to record his report and conduct investigation in accordance with law.

Complainant filed petition before Ex-officio Justice of Peace for registration of FIR against accused-police officials for murder of her brother in police custody which was dismissed

Constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution of complainant was accepted and direction was issued by the High Court for registration of case against accused-police officials

Accused filed intra court appeal against said order

Maintainability

Word "proceedings" mentioned in proviso to S. 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 included FIR, therefore, intra-court appeal against order of Single Judge passed in constitutional jurisdiction for registration of FIR was not maintainable

Opportunity of hearing was not a legal requirement to an accused in murder case before the registration of FIR

Time lapsed between injury and death was 24-hours and between death and post mortem was 16-24 hours which meant that injuries to the deceased were caused on the date when deceased was in police custody

Version of accused-police officials that deceased was beaten by local residents was fully negated by post-mortem report

Accused-police officials alleged that deceased committed suicide with help of his "nala" but deceased was wearing shalwar qameez at the time of his post-mortem examination

During pendency of judicial as well as departmental inquiry FIR against the Police Officer could be registered

Intra court appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Not obligatory for the Justice of Peace to necessarily or blindfoldly issue direction regarding registration of criminal case whenever a complaint was filed before him.

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directed SHO to record statement of complainant and if cognizable case was made out register FIR against alleged accused persons

Alleged accused persons filed application for recalling the order of Justice of Peace under S. 21 General Clauses Act, 1897 which was dismissed by Justice of Peace

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace while passing impugned order failed to discharge his duties as per the settled principles of law which were declared as void, illegal and of no consequence.

Accusation against a person, which had been made in the crime report, by itself would not give authority to officer Incharge of a Police Station to make his arrest straightaway upon registration of FIR

Mere registration of case, would not stamp any of the persons as an accused, and could not be arrested as a matter of course, unless there was sufficient incriminating evidence regarding culpability of accused

Arrest of accused was subject to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer regarding correctness and veracity of allegations levelled by the complainant against the persons named in the crime report.

Specific allegation of preparing forged and fictitious agreement to sell by affixing forged signatures had been levelled against the petitioner which constituted cognizable offence

Ex-officio Justice of Peace did not travel beyond his jurisdiction by directing the S.H.O. to record respondent's version under S.154, Cr.P.C.

Grievance of petitioner was that Ex-officio Justice of Peace declined to direct police for registration of case on his complaint

Validity

Petitioner could not point out any legal and factual infirmity in the order in question and also could not controvert what was stated in police report and para wise comments furnished by police

Nothing on record showed that Ex-officio Justice of Peace improperly exercised discretion vested in him

Order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace did not shut the doors of petitioner to initiate criminal proceedings by lodging private complaint

Issuing writ under Art. 199 of the Constitution in every case was not obligatory for High Court especially when adequate remedy in the form of private complaint was available to petitioner

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace as there was no illegality and infirmity in it

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Bank alleged that petitioner had misappropriated or stolen the rice bags and sought direction from Ex-officio Justice of Peace for registration of FIR

Validity

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was a special law and had overriding effect over the provisions of Penal Code, 1860

When Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, itself provided procedure for dealing with matters of civil as well as criminal nature, only Banking Court constituted under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, had jurisdiction to take action upon criminal acts performed by parties

Provision of S. 7(b) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, created a prohibition in respect of lodging of criminal case under the provisions of Penal Code, 1860

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was not within his jurisdiction when he ordered for registration of case against petitioners under the provisions of Penal Code, 1860

Bank had no authority to file application under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C., nor Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had any jurisdiction, in presence of Banking Court, to order for registration of case against petitioners

High Court set aside the order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Cognizable offence was reported to the SHO concerned, but the SHO, instead of registering a case under S.154, Cr.P.C., recorded the statement of complainant, and started inquiry under S.157(2), Cr.P.C.

Section 157, Cr.P.C., related to a situation where the cognizable offence was suspected

Section 157, Cr.P.C. had no application to the present case

Station House Officer concerned had received information regarding cognizable offence, and it could not be said that SHO had reasons to suspect the commission of an offence

Even under S.157, Cr.P.C., SHO was required to inform the concerned Magistrate instead of initiating inquiry immediately

On completion of inquiry, the report was to be sent to the Magistrate under S.158, Cr.P.C.

Even the procedure provided under S.157, Cr.P.C. was not followed in the present case

Receiving information regarding commission of cognizable offence and suspecting the commission of cognizable offence, were two different matters

Police Officials had no authority to evaluate the information received

Only job of the Police was to collect the material regarding the commission of offence

Police, in the present case, after receiving the report of the complainant, sent the victim to doctor to determine as to whether zina had actually been committed or not

Sending the complainant to the doctor, prior to registration of a case under S.154, Cr.P.C., the Police under the garb of S.157, Cr.P.C., took upon itself the responsibility of court and started determination of correctness or otherwise of allegations levelled in the report, which was totally uncalled for

Exercise carried out by the Police, was totally outside the ambit of powers available to the Police

FIR, in circumstances, was not registered in accordance with law.

Accused, who was charged for commission of zina with maid servant of complainant, was proceeded against and was acquitted by the Trial Court

Application filed by acquitted accused for trying the complainant party for offence of qazf, having been dismissed by the Trial Court, accused filed revision petition before Federal Shariat Court

Application of acquitted accused was dismissed on the ground that in view of latest amendment in S.6 of Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, cognizance of offence of qazf, could only be taken by the Trial Court itself, when it acquitted accused, and would proceed to pass sentence there and then

Validity

Amendment in the Ordinance had no nexus at all with the taking and manner of cognizance

Section 203-B, Cr.P.C. was the only section that dealt with the matter and manner of cognizance in a qazf case, whereas amended S.6 of the Ordinance, dealt with proof of qazf liable to hadd

Court was empowered to pass sentence there and then, however, if would fail to do so, it would be act of the court, whereby the right of anybody affected, could not be curtailed

Cognizance of case of qazf, would be taken only on a complaint lodged in a court of competent jurisdiction; unless, the court itself had taken cognizance under amended S.6 of Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979

Filing of application by acquitted accused under S.203-B, Cr.P.C., was in order, and the Trial Court was not justified to dismiss the same, by mixing up "the matter and manner of cognizance", with the "proof or otherwise of an offence"

Impugned order was set aside, with direction to the Trial Court to proceed under S.203-B, Cr.P.C.

Respondent had secured a direction from Justice of Peace for registration of case against the petitioner on various grounds

Police had reported that occurrence alleged in the application filed by respondent under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. had not taken place

Justice of Peace despite that vide impugned order issued direction to the petitioner to make statement before the S.H.O.

Validity

Justice of Peace, did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner

Justice of Peace, while passing impugned order, had not examined the Police report

Keeping the order of Justice of Peace in field, when application filed by respondent had been consigned, would amount to misuse of process of law

Impugned order passed by Justice of Peace was set aside, resulting into the dismissal of application filed by respondent under S.22-A, Cr.P.C.

Petitioner was aggrieved of direction given by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for registration of case under S.182, P.P.C., against him

Validity

No F.I.R. was registered so on the basis of illegal proceedings conducted by police there was no occasion for Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to direct police to proceed under S.182, P.P.C.

No Court, under S.195, Cr.P.C., could take cognizance of any offence punishable under Ss.172 to 188, P.P.C., except a complaint in writing of concerned public servant or of some public servant to whom he was subordinate

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace passed order without jurisdiction and the same was not sustainable in the eye of law

Order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was on the basis of illegal proceedings of inquiry conducted by police before registration of case

When the foundation itself was not sustainable, the superstructure built thereon was bound to collapse

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Trial Court formed opinion that Charas produced before Court was in fact in possession of applicants (Police officials) and they foisted the same upon accused and passed order for registration of F.I.R. against applicants

Validity

High Court declined to concur with opinion formed by Trial Court, as there was no basis for forming such opinion

Order was passed by Trial Court against applicants in their absence and without notice to them

Applicants were condemned unheard and remarks recorded by Trial Court were not tenable under the law

If there was any lapse on the part of prosecution, even then Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being special law did not provide for issuance of direction for registration of F.I.R. against applicants/official witnesses and Special Judge Narcotics acted beyond the jurisdiction

High Court expunged direction for registration of case against applicants, as the same was illegal

Application was allowed in circumstances.

Bank alleged that petitioner had misappropriated or stolen the rice bags and sought direction from Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for registration of F.I.R.

Validity

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was a special law and had overriding effect over the provisions of Penal Code, 1860

When Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, itself provided procedure for dealing with matters of civil as well as criminal nature, only Banking Court constituted under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, had jurisdiction to take action upon criminal acts performed by parties

Provision of S.7(b) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, created a prohibition in respect of lodging of criminal case under the provisions of Penal Code, 1860

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was not within his jurisdiction when he ordered for registration of case against petitioners under the provisions of Penal Code, 1860

Bank had no authority to file application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., nor Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had any jurisdiction, in presence of Banking Court, to order for registration of case against petitioners

High Court set aside the order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, on the application of bank directed Station House Officer to register case against borrower as cheque issued by him was dishonoured

Plea raised by bank was that it could file complaint under S.20(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, but was not debarred from getting a case registered under S.489-F, P.P.C.

Validity

In case of special law and a general law on the same subject, which if standing alone would include the same matter and conflict with special law, it was the special law to prevail, since it evinced legislative intent more objectively and specifically than the general law

Intent to legislate S.20(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and S.489-F, P.P.C. were altogether different and should not be intermingled

Bank was debarred from getting criminal case registered under S.489-F, P.P.C. to redress its grievance through speedy remedy of his choice

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Single Judge of High Court, who had rightly set aside the order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.