Registration of criminal case

Petitioner was a renowned cricketer of international fame and was aggrieved of order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace directing police authorities to register criminal case against him on the allegation of committing zina with respondent / complainant

Held: Criminal proceedings should not be allowed to become a tool in the hands of unscrupulous elements to malign, humiliate or bring disrepute to a person who enjoys a distinguished reputation

Judicial process must remain vigilant to ensure that it is not misused for settling scores or achieving collateral purposes

In earlier round of litigation, respondent / complainant, by swearing her affidavit, conceded that allegations against petitioner were based on mala fide and she had been playing in the hands of some media persons

Application of respondent / complainant seeking registration of case against petitioner was a calculated move to malign reputation of petitioner and bring him into disrepute before public at large

Allegation made by respondent / complainant was motivated not by genuine grievance but by a desire to bring disrepute to petitioner by leveling scandalous and sensational allegation against him

Allegations lacked spontaneity and credibility and could not be allowed to become a tool for character assassination

High Court set aside order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace who failed to comprehend such aspect of the matter and had passed the order in a mechanical manner

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Applicant / accused was direction issued by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to register FIR against him on the basis of statement made by respondent/complainant

Validity

At such initial stage of information, conclusion reached by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to issue directions to lodge FIR was not correct, fair or just

Order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace did not expressly cite precise penal provision that made the offence cognizable, which was in the mind of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

High Court directed police authorities to record statement of respondent / complainant and thereafter, to take appropriate action, as required under the law

High Court clarified that such order should not be interpreted to mean that High Court had passed directions for a mandatory registration of FIR, as in the first instance it was job of police authorities who would entertain the complainant

Application was allowed accordingly.

Refusal of the S.H.O. to register a criminal case on the ground of previous civil litigation and pendency of earlier registered criminal case

Validity

Rationale behind the conferring of powers upon the Justice of Peace was to enable the aggrieved person to approach the court of Justice of Peace for the redressal of his grievance i.e. non-registration of FIRs, excess of police, transfer of investigation to the court situated at District level or Session or at a particular Sessions Division

Main purpose of S. 22-A(6), Cr.P.C., was to create a forum at the doorstep of the people for their convenience

Primarily, proceedings before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are quasi-judicial and are not executive, administrative or ministerial to deal with the matters mechanically

Every case before Ex-Offcio Justice of Peace demands discretion and judicial observations after hearing the parties

Justice of Peace before passing any order for the registration of the FIR shall put the other party on notice against whom the registration of FIR is asked for

Even if there is no direction of the Court, the S.H.O. has no authority to refuse to record the statement of the complainant in the relevant register irrespective of its authenticity/correctness or falsity of such statement

Check against the lodging of false FIR is not the refusal to record such FIR, but the punishment of such informants under S. 182, P.P.C., etc. which should be, if enforced, a fair deterrent against misuse of the provisions of S. 154, Cr.P.C.

Criminal miscellaneous application was disposed of, in circumstances.

Application filed by the respondent before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for registration of criminal case was accepted keeping aside the police report without assigning any reason

Validity

Once Ex-Officio Justice of Peace called for the police report, he could not ordinarily brush aside the same; in case he proposed to give his opinion contrary to the police report, he was supposed to furnish tangible reasons for not relying upon the police report

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace while passing the order had not mentioned any plausible reasons for not relying on the report submitted by the police rather passed the order in a mechanical manner

In exercise of powers under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., the Justice of Peace is not supposed to proceed and act mechanically by simply considering the version of events narrated by a party applying for registration of an FIR, but instead, in order to safeguard against misuse or abuse of such process, the Justice of Peace has to apply his judicial mind and has to satisfy himself that prima facie there is some material available on record to support such version

Proceedings before Justice of Peace are quasi judicial and are not executive, administrative or ministerial to deal with the matters mechanically rather the same are quasi judicial powers, and every case before him demands discretion and judicial observations

Respondent had alternative statutory remedies under Ss. 156(3) & 190, Cr.P.C., as well as remedy to file private complaint under S.200, Cr.P.C., to press and prove his allegation before the court of competent jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was allowed while setting aside the order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and giving liberty to respondent to file a private complaint.

Applicant/complainant was aggrieved of order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace who partly allowed his application only to the extent of offence committed in his territorial jurisdiction and declined remaining part falling outside his territorial jurisdiction

Validity

Nothing prevented High Court to give appropriate direction or to make an order for registration of FIR at any of the two police stations where the alleged continued offence consisting of several acts was committed

High Court directed Station House Officer to record statement of applicant/complainant under S. 154, Cr.P.C. including but not limited to the allegations in respect of continuing acts committed within the local areas of his police station and as well register FIR against all nominated/proposed accused in other district

High Court set aside the order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to the extent of offence falling outside his territorial jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Applicant filed application before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for direction to register FIR, which application was dismissed

Validity

If offenders were known to complainant and evidence was available with him, then State assistance was least necessary for collection and preservation of evidence through investigating authorities

Directions for registration of FIR should only be given in a case where assistance of State machinery was required for collection and preservation of evidence

If Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had come to the conclusion that complainant had all relevant evidence with him and under his control then it was appropriate that no direction for registration of FIR should be issued

Complainant was at liberty to invoke jurisdiction of private complaint, as the same was more felicitous remedy in such cases

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and petitioner could file private complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C.

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner complained that her son was illegally and unlawfully taken away by Rangers from her house and his whereabouts were not known

Few days after notice was taken by High Court, the agencies released the detenue on a busy road and police finding him in vulnerable situation booked him in a criminal case of possessing illegal weapon, in which only policemen were witnesses

Validity

All such happened after filing of petition by mother of detenue and after notice of his being missing from his home through a courier service to all law enforcement agencies

Such was the manner in which fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.4 of the Constitution to detenue/missing person were violated

Even after having found detenue in jail in criminal case registered with police, habeas petition was even then maintainable

High Court set the detenue at liberty and quashed FIR registered against him

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Accused moved application to the District Magistrate for medical checkup with the contention that police officials had physically tortured him

Application of accused was allowed and in the light of medical report he presented another application before Superintendent of Police against the police officials but same was dismissed

Accused filed an application before Justice of Peace for registration of case against police officials which was accepted and order for registration of case and initiation of proceedings was passed

Police officials filed writ petition against the order of Justice of Peace but same was dismissed in limine

Validity

Justice of Peace while exercising the powers vested under the law and keeping in view the facts of the case issued direction for registration of the case

Supreme Court observed that Investigating agency while investigating the case was empowered to determine all the questions which had been raised by the petitioners before the High Court

Investigating officer could impartially investigate the matter according to law and draw the conclusion

Justice of Peace while passing the impugned order had neither travelled beyond law nor there was any lack of jurisdiction

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction in such like situation should not be exercised mere on the apprehension of the party based upon factual propositions

High Court had rightly declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, in circumstances

Investigating agency was to investigate the matter according to law in transparent and impartial manner

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Not necessary that a proper authorization should be given but a person usually representing body or association is competent to lodge F.I.R. or file complaint in a cognizable or non-cognizable case.

Petitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his application by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby he had sought registration of criminal case

Validity

Ongoing dispute existed as to status of land in possession of petitioner and others, in as much as the said property was being claimed by Irrigation Department as was its property

Such was crux of dispute and rightly discerned by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and the same was primary motive for institution of criminal proceedings

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had rightly not directed registration of FIR

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Regional Manager of Utility Stores, alleged that accused had embezzled huge government amount and referred the matter to S.H.O. concerned to lodge FIR against the accused

Station House Officer of Police Station failed to take cognizance

Petitioner moved application to Superintendent of Police for issuance of lodging FIR against accused, who referred same to the S.H.O. concerned, but needful was not done

FIR was not lodged even on order of the Inspector General of Police

High Court, on a writ petition by the petitioner observed that under provisions of S.154, Cr.P.C., every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to an Officer Incharge of a Police Station, would be reduced to writing by him or under his direction

Officer Incharge of a Police Station, could not decline to reduce into writing the FIR on the basis of information pertaining to commission of cognizable offence

Section 154, Cr.P.C., was mandatory provision and whenever an information disclosing prima facie commission of a cognizable offence was made, the concerned Police Officer was bound under law to enter the same in prescribed book and proceed in accordance with law

High Court directed the S.H.O. concerned to register FIR against the accused

Accused would be at liberty to put his defence before S.H.O. as per law.

Petitioner, had prayed for setting aside order whereby Justice of Peace, had directed SHO to record the version of respondent under S.154, Cr.P.C. and then proceed with the matter in accordance with law

Respondent had purchased a house, but she was not given the possession of said house; she filed application to the Police, and arbitration was held; she was returned back the consideration amount; matter was patched up; but Justice of Peace failed to appreciate such fact, and had passed the impugned order

Possibility could not be ruled out of consideration that respondent had procured the impugned order from Justice of Peace in order to prevail upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of house in question

Justice of Peace, was not required to pass order for registration of case in each and every case, rather should look into respective contentions of both the parties

When matter related to documents i.e. agreement etc. then it was duty of Justice of Peace to procure the attendance of respondent (accused) before passing order for registration of case

Justice of Peace in the present case had passed impugned order at the back of the petitioner without procuring his attendance

Order passed by the Justice of Peace, was set aside.

Respondent on request of the petitioner gave Rs.2,00,000 to the petitioner as loan, and in lieu thereof the petitioner issued a cheque of the same value in the name of respondent which was dishonoured on presentation to the concerned bank

On application by respondent under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., Justice of Peace ordered the SHO concerned to record the version of respondent under S.154, Cr.P.C., if commission of cognizable offence was made out

Petitioner, had assailed said order passed by Justice of Peace

Validity

When any information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence was provided to SHO, he was under legal obligation to proceed under S.154, Cr.P.C.

Averments made by the petitioner's Counsel regarding the factual aspects of the matter, if addressed, would amount to resolve the factual controversy, that could not be done by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution

Regarding contention qua nature of loan i.e. "Qarz-e-Hasna", which was to be returned when possible/convenience, for the loanee, High Court observed that when the loanee of 'Qarz-e-Hasna' voluntarily and knowingly issued a cheque for a specific date; and even if the same was dis-honoured, it would constitute a cognizable offence in terms of S.489-F, P.P.C.

No illegality or infirmity existed in the impugned order requiring interference by High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed being devoid of any merits, in circumstances.

Son of the petitioner aged 15/16 years was nominated in the murder case; he was arrested by the Police; was detained at Police Station, where he was tortured

Son of the petitioner was denuded, whipped and mixture of water and "choona" was forcibly put in his mouth as a result he became unconscious, and subsequently he expired in Hospital

Deceased received injuries in custody of Police and he was referred to Hospital, where he died and postmortem was conducted

Proceedings under S.176, Cr.P.C., were not initiated

Station House Officer of Police Station was bound to record the statement of every informant, and once information, narrated or received by SHO and would spell commission of a cognizable offence, he was left with no discretion, but to incorporate the same into the book as prescribed under S. 154, Cr.P.C., which provision was mandatory in nature

Not the caste, colour, creed or position of accused, but the investigation/trial alone, which would dress an accused with clothes of innocence

Such was not done in the present case

Conduct of the Doctor and Police, was not up to the mark in the case

Even concerned Magistrate, was not approached, who otherwise was legally empowered to inquire into in such matters, as provided by S.176, Cr.P.C.

Such legal inquiry was deliberately avoided

Under peculiar circumstances of the present case, it was obligatory on the Police Officer-in-charge of Police Station; and even the Medical Officer to have informed to the concerned Magistrate for necessary inquiry, but that obligation was not fulfilled in the case

High Court observed that both the functionaries were required to be prosecuted for their negligence

High Court directed that Magistrate would proceed to conduct an inquiry within the scope of S.176, Cr.P.C., which would be in addition to the investigation into FIR ordered to be lodged

Constitutional petition was disposed with the observations that SHO would record statement of petitioner; if same would narrate ingredients of a cognizable offence, he would incorporate the same in the book provided under S.154, Cr.P.C.

If negligence of the Doctor was found with regard to Postmortem of the deceased, Director General Health Services, would be directed to constitute team for probe with regard to postmortem report

Order accordingly.

Petitioners, who were all Police Officers, had called in question the judgment/order of Justice of Peace, whereby Justice of Peace, directed the Police Officer to get the case registered against the petitioners

Despite clear order for registration of case, order had not been complied with which was a flagrant violation of the expressed provision of law under S.154 and 22-A(6), Cr.P.C.

Simple registration of case would not mean holding petitioners, guilty for the offences, with which they would be charged in the FIR as registration of FIR would certainly be followed by investigation and trial, wherein they could not only prove their innocence, but could also set process of law in motion against the complainant for lodging a false report

In view of such safeguards and remedies available to the accused/petitioners they had no locus standi to file constitutional petition, and thereby hinder process of law unnecessarily

Constitutional petition was dismissed with direction to PPO/IGP concerned to look into the conduct of concerned SHO and take action deemed appropriate.

Justice of Peace could issue appropriate directions under S.22-A(6)(1), Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police authorities to register a case, even without seeking report from the S.H.O. concerned; to know the reasons as to why the Police had not registered case in respect of complainant's allegations where a report was asked by the Justice of Peace from S.H.O. in order to discover the real facts, the same was not to be ignored

When Justice of Peace, did not agree with the report, he should assign reasons for that

Justice of Peace was not to allow application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. in routine but apply its mind, as to whether, the petitioner had come with clean hands

In the present case, Justice of Peace, had asked comments/report from the S.H.O. concerned, but failed to assign any reasons for the same

Order of Justice of Peace, being not sustainable in the eyes of law, was set aside

Proceedings, if any, against the petitioners on the basis of the order of the Justice of Peace were quashed.

Petitioner had sought quashing of impugned judgment/order passed by Justice of Peace, whereby Local Police was directed to register criminal case against him

Two versions with regard to the same incident, which could not be scrutinized and analyzed by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, without recording evidence

Under provisions of S.154, Cr.P.C., every Police Official, was legally bound to register a cognizable case, and after proper investigation, submit report under S.173, Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court; along with finding with regard to innocence or otherwise of accused

Police had no authority to hold the report to be false and conducted without proper investigation into the offence and holding preliminary inquiry

Justice of Peace, having been conferred with jurisdiction under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., could exercise the same on satisfaction that a cognizable offence had been committed and direct the police for registration of case

Justice of Peace, seized of a complaint, under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. was to follow, the principles and procedure as provided under S.154, Cr.P.C.

Justice of Peace, had to apply the test of applying prudent mind in ascertaining, as to whether the facts of the case constituted a cognizable offence

When Justice of Peace arrived to the conclusion that a cognizable offence had been committed, he was left with no choice, but to direct the local Police in whose jurisdiction the offence was committed to register the case through lodging of F.I.R. under the relevant provisions of law, attracted to the facts of the case

No infirmity, illegality, want of jurisdiction could be pointed out, in the impugned judgment to warrant interference in the judgment

Petition was dismissed.

Petitioner had challenged the validity of order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace through which S.H.O. concerned was directed to record the version of respondent and proceed into the matter in accordance with law

Validity

Application of respondent against the petitioner for registration of criminal case, contained serious allegations of forcibly entering into the house belonging to the late brother of respondent after having armed themselves with firearms, extending threat of life to respondent on gun-point

Thorough probe into the matter, was required, in circumstances

When information regarding commission of a cognizable offence, was supplied to the Police Officer, he was duty bound to register case against the culprits, who had perpetrated the offence

Civil and criminal proceedings, could run simultaneously

Petitioner, was at liberty to establish his stance, at on appropriate stage of investigation by producing oral as well as documentary evidence in his favour constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner had challenged earlier order passed by Justice of Peace, whereby direction was given to S.H.O. for recording version of the petitioner

On application of respondent, Justice of Peace had recalled/withdrawn earlier order

Earlier order was not baseless, but conditional, that if commission of a cognizable offence was found to be made out; then a criminal case should be registered

Said earlier order had been withdrawn through impugned order on the ground that commission of any cognizable offence was not made out

Said reason was not sufficient for withdrawal of the earlier order

Once an order permissible under the law had been passed by the Justice of Peace, then without any reason, cause or justification, its review or withdrawal, was not permissible

Commission of a non-cognizable offence, was no ground, not to carry on any proceedings

Even for commission of non-cognizable offence, due proceedings had been prescribed under S.155, Cr.P.C.

Order of Justice of Peace whereby the earlier order had been recalled/reviewed, could not be termed to be justified, and was not acceptable in the eye of law

Impugned order was set aside.

Petitioners were medical practitioners who were alleged to have committed professional negligence resulting into death of complainant's wife

Earlier, complainant made a complaint to Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and thereafter filed complaint before Ex-officio Justice of Peace, who directed police to register criminal case against petitioner

Validity

Initially complainant moved Pakistan Medical and Dental Council through a written complaint, where an inquiry was conducted and Disciplinary Committee had held petitioner negligent and was issued censure with further direction to the hospital to improve their system

No impediment existed to initiate criminal or civil action after inquiry of the Council, when petitioner was found guilty to some extent and was awarded penalty of censure

Specific allegations were made in complaint which required probe and investigation to ascertain factum of mala fide or mens rea

High Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner and normal procedure provided in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, could not be halted

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Offences as alleged in the present case were committed by proposed accused persons were non-cognizable, but SHO failed to adopt the procedure provided under S.155(1), Cr.P.C.

Petitioners, approached the Justice of Peace to use his power in the matter, but Justice of Peace declined application filed by the petitioner through impugned order

Ex-officio Justice of Peace, was not supposed to allow application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., in a mechanical manner, but he had to apply his mind, as to whether, the applicant had approached the court with clean hands; or it was tainted with malice

If the matter was judged in the light of that background, petitioner was trying to compensate himself about his wrong, he did with respondents

Appeal and revision, could be filed, only against an order/judgment passed by a competent court falling under S.6, Cr.P.C.; and any order passed by such court could be examined by High Court as provided under S.435, Cr.P.C.

Justice of Peace, could not be said to be a judicial authority holding a court as classified under S.6, Cr.P.C.

Order passed by Justice of Peace, could not be impugned through revision before Chief Court, because said order fell within the domain of administrative or supervisory, and not amenable to revisional jurisdiction

Revision petition, being not sustainable both on merit and maintainability, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Registration of a criminal case or institution of criminal proceedings did not automatically imply that the accused should be disallowed to move outside Pakistan and or to put his name on the Exit Control List

Mere pendency of civil or criminal cases against a citizen was no ground to deny him fundamental right of travel within or outside Pakistan.

Petitioner had alleged that respondent/Police Officials entered into his house and inquired about his brother, who was not available at that time

Respondents allegedly destroyed the household articles, took away cash and certain articles; respondents not only had committed a cognizable offence, but continued harassing the petitioner

Respondents, however, denied allegations of the petitioner and undertook that they would not harass the petitioner, and his family members, and would act in accordance with law

Purpose of petitioner had been achieved by undertaking given by respondents

Petitioner was at liberty to approach concurrent court/Justice of Peace for redressal of his grievance; and even the petitioner had also an alternate remedy of filing direct complaint, against the accused

Purpose of the petitioner having been served, keeping the petition pending would not yield any result

Petition was disposed of directing the respondents strictly not to cause any kind of harassment to the petitioner and his family, and would act strictly in accordance with law.

Station House Officer, under the provisions of Ss.154 & 155, Cr.P.C., could not deprive aggrieved person by considering version of proposed accused to be more trustworthy than initial complaint of victim and concluding entire high handedness of aggressor being innocent without lodging F.I.R., recording of statements of witnesses of incident and conducting thorough investigations of alleged offence within the prescribed parameters of investigation in accordance with law.