TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI, J.---Said Wali was charged in a case registered, vide F.I.R. No 477 dated 19-8-2005 under section 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Cantt. The investigation of the said case had been entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Raees Khan, A.S.-I. The said accused was brought to Kohat Bureau of Investigation as the accused is kept in lockup in Kohat Bureau of Investigation where it was alleged that he was ruthlessly beaten by Mr. Muhammad Races Khan, A.S.-I. of Kohat Bureau of Investigation Staff. The said Said Wali submitted an application to the S.P. Incharge of the investigation that he was unscrupulously beaten. Due to such beating injuries had been caused to his person. On the said application the Incharge S.P. Investigation Cell Kohat sent a murasila to the S.H.O. of Police Station Cantt. on the basis of which F.I.R. No.372 was registered on 1-6-2006.
Quashment of this F.I.R. (No.372) has been sought by petitioner Miftahuddin through petition in hand.
2. Mr. Muhammad Amin Khattak (Lachi), Advocate, learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not present on the relevant day at Kohat. He had come to Peshawar and had spent a night there. The occurrence took place in his absence as is clear from the daily diary dated 31-5-2006.
3. It was also argued that the said F.I.R. had been lodged against him due to =la fide intention at the instance of one Ayub Inspector who had with the petitioner.
4. It was also argued that the S.P. Incharge of the Investigation had no lawful authority to proceed against the petitioner as under sub-Article (2) of Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002 the prosecution could only be initiated on the report in writing by an officer authorized by the rules and officer authorized in the case of the petitioner was District Police Officer and not Incharge of S.P.
Investigation, therefore, illegality has been committed by registering the said F.I.R.
5. It was also argued .that the offences with which the petitioner has been charged are non- cognizable.. Before proceeding against the petitioner, a departmental inquiry should have been conducted by the DPO and if he was found involved in the case, then he could be proceeded against.
6. On the other hand Mr. Ehsanullah Khan, Advocate, learned counsel representing the State and Malik Hamid Khan Afridi, Advocate, learned counsel representing Said Wali and respondent No.1 who was present in person argued that the petitioner was very much present at Kohat at the time of occurrence as is clear from the statement of Farmanullah Moharrar KBI. About the daily dairy produced by the petitioner it was stated that the same was fabricated in order to safe his skin from the punishment.
7. It was also argued that on receipt of a written application from Said Wali, he was sent to the medical officer and after obtaining the report that the injuries caused on his body were fresh, murasila for registration of the F.I.R. was sent to the police station concerned upon which the S.H.O. registered the case.
8. It was also argued that the investigation of the case is complete, challan has been put in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate on 25-6-2006 and charge has been framed, the case has now been fixed for evidence of the prosecution.
9. Malik Hamid Khan .Afridi,Advocate, argued that the petitioner had filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court but the said application has been dismissed by the Court below. The quashment of the F.I.R., at this stage, would amount to interfering into the process of the Court of the competent jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard was placed on Colonel Shah. Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCM R 276).
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the available record.
11. The admitted position in this case is that Said Wali was accused in case registered vide F.I.R. No. 477 dated 19-8-2005 under section 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Cantt. Kohat. It is also an admitted position that he was brought to the lock-up of Kohat Bureau of Investigation. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Muhammad Raees Khan, A.S.-I. was the Investigating Officer of the said case and the petitioner had nothing to do with the same, has no force. At The moment prima facie there is evidence in,the shape of statement of Farmanullah the Moharrar of KBI that he was present at relevant time in the said centre. Without dilating in detail about his involvement lest my observation may not influence the mind of the learned trial Court.
Suffice to say that his presence is a question which would be seen by the learned trial Court.
12.As per the statement of respondent No.1 who is a senior police officer and Incharge of the Investigation Cell Said Wali on receipt of his application was referred to the doctor by him and after obtaining his report that the injury of his person was fresh, murasila was sent for registration of case against both officials and that he had no ill will or grudge with the petitioner. The action taken by him was in accordance with law and he has committed no illegality whatsoever in sending murasila to the concerned S.H.O.
13. The provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. with regard to the registration of a case are clear. On receipt of every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer Incharge of the police station shall be reduced in writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant and every such information whether in writing or reduced to writing 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.
14. Any person who gives any information either orally or in writing with regard to the commission of cognizable offence can ask the officer Incharge of the police station to register a case if any cognizable offence was committed what to speak of a Superintendent of Police who is Incharge of the Investigation Cell of the entire District. No illegality as mentioned above, whatsoever has been committed by respondent No.l in sending murasila to the S.H.O. of the concerned police station. So far as section 337-F (1), P.P.C. which the petitioner has been charged is punishable with punishment of 5 years and the same is cognizable. Investigation of the case has been completed way back in June, 2006 and challan of the case has been submitted in the Court wherein charge against the petitioner and his co-accused has also been framed and now the case is fixed for evidence. A similar proposition came up for hearing before august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Colonel Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCM R 276) in which the following principle was laid down:-- "It is also a settled proposition of law that if prima facie an offence has been committed, ordinary course of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. By accepting the constitutional petition the High Court erred in law to short circuit the normal procedure of law as provided under Cr.P.C. and polipe rules while exercising equitable jurisdiction which is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court."
Keeping in view the above dictum laid down by august Supreme Court of Pakistan I do not feel it appropriate at this stage, to deflect the working of the Court of competent jurisdiction. Resultantly, the petition in hand is dismissed.