' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 13-10-2006 passed by Mr. Muhammad Zubair Cheema, learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Sahiwal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For registration of case against respondents Nos.3 to 5 was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 24-8-2006 at about 4 p.m.
Tassaduq Hussain petitioner was attacked by respondents Nos.3 to 5 out of whom respondent No,3 fired upon him with .7 mm rifle hitting his left leg. Thereafter Jehangir respondent also fired with his rifle but fortunately said fire did not hit him. He further submits that Tassaduq Hussain was medically examined at 4-30 p.m. On the same day and according to the Medico-legal Certificate attached with this petition as Annexure "A", he had received a fire-arm injury on his left leg, which went through and through. An application for registration of case was submitted to respondent No,2 who refused to register the case in violation of section 154, Cr.P.C. Thereafter he approached respondent No,1 but with no success. Consequently he had no option but to file an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Sahiwal which was entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Zubair Cheema, learned Additional Sessions Judge Justice of Peace, Sahiwal. After the receipt of report said learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to dismiss the said application vide impugned order, dated 13-10-2006.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under section 154, Cr.P.C. Respondent No,2 was legally bound to register the case as contents of the application filed by the petitioner did disclose to commission of cognizable offence but he failed to perform his duty. He has further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had also committed an illegality while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.
3. Mr. Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khawar, Advocate who has entered appearance on behalf of respondents Nos.3 to 5, who were under notice in the present petition, submitted that impugned order was quite justified and the present petition is liable to be dismissed as material facts were suppressed by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner along with others is involved in murder case which has been registered vide F.I.R. No,1530 of 2006 at the instance of Jehangir respondent No,4 while Muhammad Nawaz, respondent No,5 has been cited as a witness in said case. He has maintained that application for registration of case was totally false and frivolous and purpose of filing the same was to pressurize the private respondents to withdraw from the prosecution of above said murder case. He has further maintained that the superior Courts have ample jurisdiction to refuse a relief where granting of the same would tantamount to injustice. In this regard he has placed reliance upon PLD 2001 SC 415. Apart from that he has placed reliance upon a case reported as Muhammad Ali Hussain v. D.P.O. And others PLD 2006 Lah.
95. To further emphasize his point the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Rapat No,19 which was recorded on 24-8-2006 and police came to the conclusion that contents of said "Rapat" were doubtful.
5. Exercising the right of rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as far as "Rapat" No,19, dated 24-8-2006 is concerned the petitioner was neither party to the same nor he was aware of said report and as a matter of fact same had been malafidely entered by the police to demolish the case of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the police had got no jurisdiction to investigate the case without the registration of the same as that would amount to putting horse before the cart.
6. I have heard both the parties at length and perused the record . It has been observed that according to M.L.R. The petitioner was medically examined at 4-30 p.m. On 24-8-2006. According to the petitioner the occurrence took place at 4 p.m. On the same day and within half an hour of the occurrence he was medically examined. The Medico-legal Report further shows that the petitioner received a fire-arm injury, on his leg, which went through and through. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the private respondents had approached to any authority for the re- examination of Tassaduq Hussain to show that said injury was self-suffered. In presence of said Medico-legal Report, "Rapat" No,19 loses much of its significance. Even otherwise the police was not competent to enter into the investigation before lodging the case. Contents of the application which was submitted by the petitioner to respondents Nos.1, 2 and 7 being supported by the Medico-legal Report did show that cognizable offence had been committed. The question whether the "Rapat" No,19 was in fact lodged by any person on behalf of the petitioner without his knowledge or consent, or not also required investigation especially when it is the stand of the petitioners that same was malafidely entered by the police to frustrate the attempt of the petitioner to register the case.
7. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the private respondents is not helpful to him inasmuch as the relief of registration of case, in this matter, by no stretch of imagination would tantamount to injustice rather it would be helpful to promote the justice as such the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan as cited by the learned counsel for the private respondents is not applicable to the present case. The grant of relief by way of order of registration of case would be nothing but putting legal machinery into motion. Likewise the case reported as PLD 2006 Lah. 95 is distinguishable.
8. It is settled law that if there is an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, it falls under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. And a Police Officer is under statutory obligation to enter it in the prescribed Register. The condition precedent is simply two-fold; first it must be an information and secondly, 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 dependant upon the sweet will of the Police Officer who may or may not record it. Such observations were made in a famous case of M. Anwar Barrister-at- Law v. The Station House Officer, Civil Lines Police Station Lahore and another PLD 1972 Lah.
493. Said view has been frequently followed by the superior Courts of the country. If some more case-law is required the same is cited as under:--
(1) Wajid Ali Khan and others v. Government of Sindh and others 2001 SCMR 1556; (2) Saeed Ahmad and others v. Naseer Ahmad and others PLD 2000 Lah. 208; (3) Sana Ullah v. S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat and others PLD 2003 Lah. 228 and (4) Muhammad Yousaf v. Director-General of Police PLD 1997 Lah.
135.
9. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the private respondents regarding the availability of the remedy of private complaint is concerned suffice it to say that the allegations levelled by the petitioner would be requiring thorough investigation and question of recovery of the fire-arm weapon allegedly used in the occurrence would also be involved. For this reason it would be more appropriate to register the case.
10. In view of the statutory law and the case-law cited above it is held the respondent No,2 failed to perform his legal duty by way of not recording the F.I.R. On the application of the petitioner.
Accordingly the impugned order passed by the respondent No,7 is set aside and respondent No,2 is directed to entertain the above mentioned application of the petitioner and do the needful in accordance with law.
11. Before parting with this matter it is observed that as far as contents and authenticity of "Rapat"
No,19 is concerned the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to investigate the version of both the sides. Needless to add that if after investigating of the case, the version of the petitioner is found false, the Investigating Officer Would be at liberty to proceed against him under section 182, P.P.C.
With the above mentioned observation, this writ petition is allowed.