' SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondent No,2 so as to register a criminal case against respondent No,4/SHO Police Station City C-Division, Rahim Yar Khan and five other persons and to act strictly in accordance with law.
2. Factually speaking prior to approaching this court, the petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, through an application under section 22-A/22-B of Cr.P.C. For redressal of the same grievance as mentioned above. On the said application, after all the requisite procedure the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Rahim Yar Khan was pleased to dispose of the application vide order dated 8-2-2010 as follows:-- "As per allegations contained in the petition, respondent No,3 along with five unknown persons entered into house of petitioner forcibly and took away his brother Noman Hassan Zakriya forcibly.
Although the SHO Police Station City A-Div. Rahim Yar Khan has reported that by orders of District Coordination Officer, Rahimyar Khan dated 1-2-2010, regarding detention of Noman Hassan Zakriya, petitioner's brother, for thirty days, he was arrested from Church Road, Rahim Yar Khan and no one entered into house of petitioner, but in view of seriousness of allegations of allegedly trespassing into house of petitioner by police officer along with five unknown persons, the petitioner is directed to approach the District Police Officer, Rahim Yar Khan and move complaint to him, and DPO, Rahim Yar Khan is directed to proceed with the complaint of petitioner in accordance with law. This petition is disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to record room after its due completion."
' The said order dated 8-2-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Rahim Yar Khan was not complied with and hence this constitutional petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel, in support of this writ petition, has stated that the matter was promptly and duly reported to the SHO, Police Station City A-Division, Rahim Yar Khan and an application for registration of F.I.R. Was also submitted but the police officials did not look into the matter which they were bound to do under the law leaving the petitioner with no other option but to approach the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, who was pleased, after following requisite procedure, to refer the matter to the police officials as there were serious allegations levelled in the petition on the basis of which cognizable offence was made out. Further adds that from bare reading of the petition of the petitioner a cognizable offence is made out but the respondents/police officials are reluctant to register a case against the wrong doers who also happen to be their colleagues i,e, police officials. Further adds that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is only required to pass an order on receiving of an application after being satisfied that cognizable offence is made under the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Against the wrong doers or not. Further adds that the powers conferred upon Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are non-judicial but administrative in nature. Lastly adds that under no circumstances of law, preliminary inquiry is required to be held before lodging the F.I.R., which is against the mandate of law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 4 has strongly opposed this petition as according to the stance taken by the said respondent, the respondent No,4 raided the house of the petitioner so as to arrest Maulvi Noman Hassan Ludhianvi and detain him for 30 days in District Jail, Rahim Yar Khan under section 10(3) of Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and it was in connection with the said order by the high ups that the respondent No,4 raided the house of the petitioner and needful was also done. Further states that on the application of the petitioner under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Justice of Peace and in compliance of the order of said Court dated 8-2-2010, an inquiry was conducted and vide report dated 16-3-2010, it was declared that no such occurrence as alleged by the petitioner, took place. The said inquiry was conducted on the instruction of the District Police Officer who appointed DSP, City Circle as Inquiry Officer. Further adds that there was another inquiry where respondent No, 4 was charge-sheeted and after following the whole requisite procedure the respondent No,4 was declared innocent and was exonerated. Lastly states that there was nothing personal between the respondent No,4 and the petitioner as he performed his duties purely in accordance with law and on the dictates of the high ups/Senior Officials.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available before me.
6. From the perusal of the application referred to by the petitioner, he has alleged that on 1-2-2010 at about 6-00 p.m. He was present at his house with his family members including female family members where six persons armed with deadly weapons wearing white dresses knocked the door of the petitioner and forcibly entered into the house and on query they flared up and forcibly trespassed the house, ruined the sanctity and prestige of family/womenfolk while entering into the residential room forcibly. These allegations levelled have been given in detail in the application by the petitioner and after going through all the said allegations being serious with regard to trespassing into the house of the petitioner, the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge directed to proceed with the complaint of the petitioner and the said order dated 8-2-2010 was not complied with. Interestingly, on the application for initiating legal proceedings against the respondent No,4 and others, the police officials are holding inquiries which is altogether against the dictates of law as in the case of Muhammad Bashir v. SHO, etc. Reported as PLD 2007 SC 539, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no authority vested with an Officer Incharge of the police station or with anyone else to hold an inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the information which was conveyed to the SHO for the purpose of recording of an F.I.R. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed "any F.I.R. Registered after such exercise i,e, determination of the truth or falsity of the information conveyed to the SHO would get hit by the provisions of section 162, Cr.P.C. Existence of an F.I.R. Was no condition precedent for holding an investigation nor was the same a prerequisite for the arrest of a person concerned with the commission of cognizable offence; nor does recording of an F.I.R. Mean that the S.H.O. Or a police officer deputed by him was obliged to investigate the case or to go through the whole length of investigation of the case mentioned therein or that any accused person nominated therein must be arrested--- Check against lodging of false F.I.Rs, was not refusal to record such F.I.Rs,, but punishment of such informants under S.182, P.P.C. Etc. Which should be if enforced, a fairly deterrent against misuse of the provisions of 5.154, Cr.P.C." Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment in Para No,27 observed and held as under:-- "The conclusions that we draw from the above, rather lengthy discussion, on the subject of F.I.R., are as under:--
(a) no authority vested with an Officer Incharge of a Police Station or with anyone else to refuse to record an F.I.R. Where the information conveyed, disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence;
(b) no authority vested with an Officer Incharge of Police Station or with any one else to hold any inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the information which is conveyed to the S.H.O. For the purposes of recording of an F.I.R.
(c) any F.I.R. Registered after such an exercise i,e, determination of the truth or falsity of the information conveyed to the S.H.O., would get hit by the provisions of section 162, Cr.P.C.
(d) existence of an F.I.R. Is no condition precedent for holding of an investigation nor is the same a prerequisite for the arrest of a person concerned with the commission of a cognizable offence;
(e) nor does the recording of an F.I.R. Mean that the S.H.O. Or a police officer deputed by him was obliged to investigate the case or to go through the whole length of investigation of the case mentioned therein or that any accused nominated therein must be arrested; and finally that,
(f) the check against lodging of false F.I.Rs, was not refusal to record such F.I.Rs, but punishment of such informants under S. 182, P. P. C. Etc. Which should be, if enforced, a fairly deterrent against misuse of the provisions of S.154, Cr. P. C. "
7. With utmost respect, in this case the respondents have not followed the requisite procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above as on the application of the petitioner, inquiries have allegedly been held wherein respondent No,4 has been found innocent and the stance of the petitioner has been denied despite the fact that serious allegations have been levelled against the respondent No,4 and the wrong doers. All these acts by the respondents denying the petitioner his lawful right are unwarranted under the law in the light of said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the police officials at the very outset were bound to see as to whether a cognizable offence is made out from the bare reading of the petition or not. Here in this case, a cognizable offence is made out. The police officials were not, under the law, bound to hold a preliminary inquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. Similar view has been given in the case of Ghulam Farid v. S.H.O. Etc. Reported as 2013 PCr.LJ 117; it has been held by the Hon'ble Sindh High Court as under:- "Station House Officer (SHO) of Police holding inquiry to assess correctness of information provided by complainant---Legality--No provision in any law, including Ss.154 and 155, Cr.P.C., authorized an Officer Incharge of the Police Station to hold any inquiry to assess the correctness or falsity of the information received by him before complying with the mandatory requirement of reducing the information into writing irrespective of the fact whether such information was true or not."
' Again similar view has also been given in case Mst. Sulima v. Government of Sindh, through Secretary Home Department and 14 others (2013 PCr.LJ 100 Sindh).
8. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the petitioner's case is a fit case wherein from the bare reading of the complaint of the petitioner, cognizable offence is made out under the relevant provisions of law and the police are bound to register a criminal case against the wrong doers. In the given circumstances, this writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents/police officials to register a case against the respondent No,4 and concerned strictly in accordance with law. #EndJudgment