Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that S. H. O., Police Station Mitha Tiwana be directed to register a case on the informa--tion supplied by him.
2. On 15th January, 1981 the petitioner submitted an application before the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Jauharabad, in which he alleged that two months earlier, at about mid-night, a number of persons (named in the application) came to his house while armed with a shotgun and lathis ; further, on gun point, they forced him to solemnize the nikah of his nine years old daughter with one of them, namely, Habib Ullah. He prayed that appropriate action should be taken under the law against the assailants. The Assistant Superintendent of Police marked the application S. H. O. Mitha Tiwana with the endorsement that he should personally look into the case and take necessary legal action. The petitioner then presented this application before the said S. H. O. On 28th January, 1981. Instead of recording an F. I. R. On the basis of the said application the S. H, O. Reproduced the contents thereof in his station diary and recorded the following note :-- Subsequently after conducting some sort of inquiry he held that no cognizable offence had been made out. He sent a copy of his report to the Ilaqa Megistrate. The petitioner then filed the present petition.
There can be little doubt that the application which the petitioner had submitted before the Assistant Superintendent of Police did disclose commission of cognizable offences. This being so the S. H. O. Was under a legal obligation to register an F.I.R. Unless he was of the firm opinion that the application on the very face of it contained incredible or false information. He had no option in the matter. Reference in this context is invited to a decision of this Court in Haji Muhammad Khan v.
Khizar Hayat (PLD 1977 Lah. 424) wherein it was observed :- "The first question is whether the Police Officer can refuse to record an F. I. R. Even if it discloses a cognizable offence. The answer to this question is furnished by the mandatory provisions of section 154 of the Cr. P. C. Which provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer-- in-charge 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.' This provision, mandatory as it is, leaves no scope for exercise of any discretion by the Police Officer concerned in recording the First Information Report or in refusing to record the same."
3. When called upon to explain the provisions of law under which he had refused to carry out his statutory obligation, the S. H. O. Referred to the provisions of section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section reads as follows :- "(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer-in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empower-- ed to take cognizance of such offence upon a Police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the Provincial Government may, by general-or special order, prescribe in this behalf to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender : Provided as follows :---
(a) when any information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer-in-charge of a police-station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot ;
(b) if it appears to the officer-in-charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
(2) In each of the cases mentioned as clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer-in-charge of the police-station shall state in his said report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that subsection, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) such Officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Provincial Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated."
It is difficult to see how the provisions of section 157 can be evoked by the S. H. O. In support of his action. No doubt this section does em--power an officer-in-charge of a police station to refuse to investigate a case but this stage will arise only after a case has already been registered. It cannot be construed as conferring discretion upon the Officer even in the matter of the registration of a case where definite information with regard to the commission of a cognizable offence has been given to him.
4. Even otherwise, too, the action of the S. H. O. Does not appear to be in accordance with the provisions of section 159. In his mention the grounds which made him suspect the correctness he contents of the application. If he thought that it was not a case in which he should conduct the investigation he should have stopped at that and submitted a report to the higher Police Officer for onward onwards the Ilaqa Magistrate. He did not do this but proceeded to hold an inquiry of his own by calling upon the petitioner to produce his evidence before him. The provisions of section 157 are not intended to empower the officers-in-charge of police station to postpone registration of case when definite information has been given to them, till they had held an inquiry of their own. It is to be observed that section 157 deals only with investigation of a case which a Police Officer may undertake on either the basis of definite information or suspicion ; its provisions cannot be used to postpone registration of cases till preliminary inquiries have been held by the Police Officer.
5. However, that may be, I am not inclined to issue any direction to the S. H. O. For the registration of the case. All the evidence which the petitioner proposes to lead in support of the allegations made by him is already in his possession and the investigation if conducted by the Police is not going to advance his case any further. He has adequate remedy available by way of private complaint. I would therefore, dismiss this writ petition but leave the parties to bear their own costs.