Malik Hamid Saeed, J.--In this writ petition, filed by Mian Shafique Ahmad of Alfalah Street outside Hashtnagri Gate, Peshawar for registration of a case, against Muhammad Riaz Khan, SHO Police Station Daud Zai and Haroon Rashid s/o. Abdul Sattar Khan, Respondents Nos, 2 and 3; u/S.17(3)
Harrabbah, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, the assertions of both the parties'are as under:--
2. According to Mian Shafique Ahmad, Petitioner, he being a peaceful and respectable citizen of Pakistan involved in running his petroleum business in various areas of NWFP when on 24.5.2000 was coming out from his house to deposit Rs, 11,50,000/- as draft in the name of Pakistan State Oil at Khyber Bank Peshawar received a telephonic message of his Manager Nadir Khan from Yaqoob Shafi Petrol Pump situated at Charsadda Road, Peshawar that Abdur Rashid alias Haroon-ur- Rashid s/o Abdul Sattar Khan with the help of the bailiff of the Court alongwith the local police of P.S. Daudzai are getting possession of the said petrol pump. The petitioner instead to, deposit the said amount in Bank rushed to the said Petrol Pump alongwith his personal bag containing Rs, 11,50,000/- and when entered in the office of the said Petrol Pump he found Abdur Rashid alias Haroon Rashid and Muhammad Riaz Khan, SHO, Police Station Daud Zai there. The SHO and Abdul Rashid asked the petitioner to sign over the warrant of possession. On his refusal the SHO threatened the petitioner while Abdul Rashid who was in possession of a pistol attacked over the petitioner, hit him on his head forcefully in presence of the said SHO, as a result of which he received grievous hurt and became senseless while the personal bag containing Rs, 11,50,000/- was snatched by the SHO and Abdur Rashid accused. All the employees of the petrol pump were already arrested by the local police and no other person except the above named accused were present in the office at that time, as the remaining police officials numbering 35/40 were present outside the office of the said petrol pump. As a result of the said head injury the petitioner was sent to LRH/ICU by the local police in unconscious condition and on gaining senses when he asked about his personal bag, which was already snatched from him by the two accused, the same was stated to be missing along the money therein. The petitioner on the same date sent a written complaint to the Police Station but his this version was not incorporated in the FIR already lodged vide No, 383 dated 24.5.2000 u/S. 337-F(ii)/186 PPC against Abdul Rashid accused by Muhammad Riaz, SHO for causing injuries to the petitioner with malafide intention. The possession of the said petrol pump was restored to the petitioner on the following day by orders of the competent Court and when he examined the petrol pump, he found missing various articles and also cash amount of Rs, 2,55.700/-. The petitioner again approached the local police for registration of the case against the two accused but the same was refused. The petitioner then approached Respondent No, 1/SSP Peshawar with a written complaint for registration of a criminal case against the accused, who marked the matter to SP Rural, Respondent No, 4 but no action was taken on the same. That a judicial inquiry was conducted in the matter through Syed Abdul Jabbar Shah, Magistrate by the District Magistrate, Peshawar, wherein the version of the petitioner was admitted to be correct but with regard to the amount in question it was opined that these allegations should be probed into by some Investigating Agency.
3. The stand of Respondent No, 2/SHO as evident from the contents of FIR No, 383 dated 24.5.2000 is that he along-with police contingent was present on the spot for help of Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Tufail, bailiffs to handed over possession of the petrol pump to Abdul Rashid, when in the meanwhile Mian Muhammad Shafique Ahmad, owner of the petrol pump came inside the room of the petrol pump. This act of Muhammad Shafique annoyed Abdul Rashid, who both in presence of the police and bailiffs grappled with each others. During this course, Abdul Rashid injured Muhammad Shafique with a sharp edged weapon on his head and hands and escaped from the spot. The injured was therefore shifted to the Hospital for treatment alongwith injury sheet prepared by him.
4. So far as the documentary proof available on record is concerned, it is evident that the occurrence in question has taken place on 24.5.2000 in the Petrol Pump in question. Muhammad Riaz, SHO in his comments_ has admitted his presence on the spot alongwith Abdul Rashid and bailiff of the Court. The contention of the petitioner is also admitted that the employee of the petitioner namely Faqir s/o Ali Haider was arrested prior to the arrival of the petitioner in the pump for having unlicensed D.B. Shotgun.
5. The Inquiry Officer in his report though has stated that Mian Shafiq has levelled allegation against SHO Daudzai Muhammad Riaz and Abdul Rashid that they have taken Rs, 11,50,000/- from him at the time of scuffle but later on has given no positive findings, probably for lack of collecting proper evidence in this regard, hence, has observed that these allegations should be probed from some investigating agency. More so, the inquiry was conducted on wrong premises of enlightening the highhanded ness of the police in the episode, which in fact should have been conducted with regard to the alleged stance of the petitioner that he has been deprived of a huge amount inside the room of the petrol pump where only the SHO PS Daudzai and Abdul Rashid were present, otherwise it was no secret that the police was present on the spot for delivering possession of the petrol pump to Abdul Rashid under Court orders. The SHO in response to the plea of the petitioner that he is a peaceful citizen has stated in his comments that he is a peaceful citizen as he has obstructed the answering respondents and bailiffs of the Court in the discharge of public function and hence he is facing proceeding under Section 186 PPC. We would like to observe that the SHO has also performed his duties in a proper way that despite the presence of so many police officials, Abdul Rashid succeeded to inflict serious nature of injuries on the person of Mian Shafique, Petitioner, and then also succeeded to escape from the spot. If an SHO cannot peacefully handle the situation between two persons with regard to delivery of possession having the help of so many police officials on the post, how can he be entrusted with guarding the whole area of the Police Station?
6. Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes it obligatory for an Officer Incharge of a Police Station that, "Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer incharge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant,. and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf." The superior Courts time and again have interpreted these provisions of law in very clear terms and there remains no ambiguity for a Station House Officer to make any excuse in this regard when information of committing a cognizable offence is given to him by an informant. In this case, the allegations leveled by the petitioner against Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 on the face of it was constituting the commission of a cognizable offence, yet not only the local police of PS Daudzai but also the high ups of the Police Department gave no positive response to it coupled with the fact that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused mentioned in the complaint of the petitioner is quite distinct and separate from the one recorded in FIR No, 183.
In an authority reported in 2000 P.Cr.L.J. 320, it has been held that:-- "S. 154--Registration of second F.I.R.--Two versions of an occurrence--Effect--Where a distinct and separate cognizable offence was disclosed and no effective inquiry or trial could be held without properly appreciating and considering the two versions, another F.I.R. was to be registered."
The inquiry conducted as early as on 20.6.2000 clearly suggests that the allegations of the petitioner in this regard should be probed from some investigating agency, but still no FIR was chalked out against the accused, rather as per contents of the comments submitted by the respondents; the matter is under investigation before the D.S.P. Circle and he would yet to pass some orders after about 4 years of an occurrence, the information of which has been conveyed to the police very promptly.
7. In an authority report in PLD 2000 Lahore 208, it is held that:- "If there is an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, it falls under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a police officer is under a statutory obligation to enter it in the prescribed register. The condition precedent is simply two-fold; first, it must be an information and second, it must relate to a cognizable offence on the face of it and not merely in the light of subsequent events. A police officer is bound to receive a complaint when it is preferred to him or where the commission of an offence is reported to him orally, he is bound to take down the complaint. If he does not incorporate in the register a complaint so made, he fails to perform a statutory duty as a public servant and, therefore, renders himself to be dealt with by his superior officers for neglect of duty. Thus, it does not depend on the sweet will of a police office who may or may not record it."
In another authority reported in PLD 1999 Lahore 521, their lordships of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court have observed that:-- "Once an F.I.R. is recorded in the F.I.R. Register, ordinarily High Court is reluctant to issue a writ of mandamus directing the police authority to register second F.I.R. This rule is, however, not a rule of thumb and can be forsaken in the context of special circumstances of the case. If the statement of the complainant shows that occurrence reported therein is totally different from one which is incorporated in previous F.I.R.; that it is not mere a defence or a counterblast and raises serious factual allegations which are radically different from the first F.I.R. then this Court is well within its powers to order for registration of a second/third F.I.R."
8. So far as the apprehension of a false allegation of the petitioner against the accused/Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 is concerned, it may be stated that the legislation has placed check and balances through S. 182 PPC upon complainant as has been held in the authority reported in 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1645, but so far as the registration of a case under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the police is under obligation to register it in a cognizable offence:-- "through the introduction of Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code the Legislature has placed the check and introduced the balance by making liable the complainant under Section 182 Pakistan Penal Code, if the information given by him ultimately found to be false during the investigation."
9. For the aforesaid reasons the refusal/reluctance of the police to register a case upon the complaint of the petitioner is violative of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the instant writ petition is a fit case for issuing directions to the respondents to register a case against the accused/respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition is accepted and Respondents Nos, 1, 4 and 5 are directed to register a 'case against Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 under the relevant provisions of law, and the copy of the FIR, so registered in the case, shall be sent to this Court within two days from the receipt of this judgment. No order as to costs.