PLJ 2013 Cr.C.
(Peshawar
[Abbottabad Bench]
[Abbottabad Bench]
Present: Waqar Ahmed Seth, J.
QAMAR
NAEEM--Petitioner
versus
S.H.O. POLICE
STATION CANTT., ABBOTTABAD and 3 others--Respondents
Crl. Misc. Q.P. No.
7-A of 2013, decided on 25.2.2013.
Statutory duty--
----Information
relating to commission of a cognizable offence would fall under Section
154--Police officer is under statutory duty, without entering into enquiry and
without hearing accused, to enter it in FIR register--For this exercise, the
only pre condition is that the information should disclose commission of a
cognizable offence on the face of the allegation--Failure of concerned police
officer to register such information in FIR register would amount to failure to
discharge statutory obligations by the police officer. [P. 535] A
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 22-A
& 561-A--Powers of ex-officio--Powers of ex-officio, the same are very
limited one--While exercising such powers, he should not enter into disputed
questions of facts to find out the truth--Under Section 22-A he is not expected
and is not required to allow the request of complainant mechanically, blindly
and without application of his legal mind--However, when the complainant
discloses the cause of action and commission of cognizable offence his order to
refuse registration of the case under the relevant Sections of law would be
perverse and arbitrary exercise of powers under Section 22-A--Quashment petition was allowed. [P. 535] B
Malik Masood-ur-Rehman Awan, Advocate
for Petitioner.
Mr. M. Nawaz Khan Swati, AAG for
Respondents.
Date of hearing:
25.2.2013.
Judgment
Qamar Naeem petitioner has filed this petition u/S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of order
dated 06.12.2012, whereby learned Justice, of Peace/Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Abbottabad dismissed the application of
petitioner filed under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of case against the persons
mentioned therein.
2. Facts, as per
contents of petition, are that initially petitioner submitted an application to
Respondent No. 1 regarding the occurrence and thereafter approached Respondent
No. 2. Respondent No. 1 allegedly initiated an enquiry instead of registration
of case. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed application u/S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction regarding registration of
case and Respondent No. 3 called for comments of Respondent No. 1. Respondent
No. 3, on receipt of comments, rejected the application of petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel
for petitioner argued that petitioner is lawful owner of the shop in question,
which was given to one Raheel Shah on rent and the
accused mentioned in the application and his companions duly armed with lethal
weapons cut off the lock of shop and also attacked at the life of petitioner
and thereby committed a cognizable offence but the police officials and the
learned Justice of Peace in haste turned down the applications of petitioner.
4. On the other
hand, learned counsel for State opposed the contentions of petitioner and
supported the impugned orders.
5. Arguments
heard and record perused.
6. A perusal of
record would show that a cognizable offence has been made out against the
accused persons as the possession of the shop in question is stated to have
been given to the complainant, which was later on shown to have forcefully been
occupied by the accused persons and the SHO is under obligation to register the
case against the accused persons.
7. Information
relating to commission of a cognizable offence would fall under Section 154.
Police officer is under statutory duty, without entering into enquiry and
without hearing accused, to enter it in FIR register. For this exercise, the
only pre condition is that the information should disclose commission of a
cognizable offence on the face of the allegation. Failure of concerned police
officer to register such information in FIR register would amount to failure to
discharge statutory obligations by the police officer.
8. As regarding
the powers of ex-officio, the same are very limited one. While exercising such
powers, he should not enter into disputed questions of facts to find out the
truth. Under Section 22-A he is not expected and is not required to allow the
request of complainant mechanically, blindly and without application of his
legal mind. However, when the complainant discloses the cause of action and
commission of cognizable offence his order to refuse registration of the case
under the relevant Sections of law would be perverse and arbitrary exercise of
powers under Section 22-A.
9. For the
reasons mentioned hereinabove, the present quashment
petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III
Abbottabad dated 06.12.2012 is quashed and SHO of
Police Station concerned is directed to register FIR against the accused
persons, under the relevant Sections of law.
(A.S.) Petition
allowed
