Muhammad Tariq Abbasi, J. This writ petition, objects the order dated 07.09.2020 of the learned Magistrate Ist Class Rawalpindi, regarding approval for cancellation of FIR No.259, dated 12.01.2020, registered under Sections 420/468/471 PPC, at Police Station Airport, Rawalpindi.
2. In the above said FIR, the police had carried on the proceedings and finally recommended for its cancellation, on the sole ground that the complainant had failed to lead cogent and convincing, oral as well as documentary evidence, in support of the FIR.
3. The cancellation report has gone before the learned Magistrate Ist-Class Rawalpindi, from where, agreement to it, has been shown, with the following contentions:- "Perusal of record reveals that during the course of investigation it was found that no such occurrence took place. Investigation has been verified by SHO and duly forwarded by learned ADPP . Present cancellation report is based on materia l facts and circumstances relevant to the instant case which denies the occurrence, therefore, I agree with present cancellation report."
4. The above mentioned wording of the learned Magistrate is nothing but a stamp of confirmation, upon the proceedings of the police, in a slipshod manner , without application of judicious mind. Such a practice is always disapproved by Superior Courts of the country .
5. Rule 24.7 of Police Rules, 1934 Vol.III, Chapter XXIV prescribes the procedure for submitting a report for cancellation of FIR to a Magistrate, empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or send him for trial. It reads as under:- "24.7. Unless the investigation of a case in transferred to another police station or district, no first information report can be cancelled without the orders of a Magistrate of the 1st class.
When information or other intelligence is recorded under section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, and, after investigation, is found to be maliciously false or false owing to mistake of law or fact or to be non- cognizable or matter for a civil suit, the Superintendent shall send the first information report and any other papers on record in the case with the final report to a Magistrate having jurisdiction, and being a Magistrate of the first class, for orders of cancellation. On receipt of such an order the officer in charge of the police station shall cancel the first information report cancelling the case with number and date of order . He shall then the return the original order to the Superintendent' s office to be filed with the record of the case.
Bare reading of the above mentioned provision, clearly depicts that the situations, where a move for cancellation of a registered case can be made are:- a. Information is maliciously false, b. false owing to mistake of law , c. false owing to mistake of fact d. of fence reported is found to be non-cognizable e. matter fit for a civil suit The order passed by the learned judicial Magistrate does not disclose any of the above mentioned reasons, hence could not be termed as justified.
6. While exercising power under section 173(3), Cr.P.C, the Magistrate is not to act as pawns, in the hands of the police and pass mechanical orders, witho ut application of his conscious mind to the facts and the material, placed before him. The Magistrate must realize that the power to cancel a police case is of wide amplitude, which has the effect of bringing to halt a criminal prose cution, which otherwise would entail a detailed process. Such a power , therefore, by its very nature, cannot be designed to be exercised on mere "ipsi dixit" of the police. Otherwise, the very purpose for conferring this power to the Magistrate on responsible level, in supervisory capacity would stand defeated. The Magistrate while acting fairly, justly , honestly and applying his mind to the material before him and duly considering all the aspects of the matter should pass a speaking and well-reasoned order , rather putting his signatures in an unjustified manners, whichever is placed before him by the police. His order should indicate as how and on the basis of which material , he finds himself in agreement with the cancellation report. Any order passed in a mechanical manner , without indicating independent application of mind, is deprecated. If any case law in this regarding is needed, reference may be made to the case titled M. AFTAB SAIGAL versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION NOR TH CANTT ., LAHORE and 9 others reported as 1994 MLD 1659 , the relevant portion thereof reads as under:- "The three preconditions to act fairly , justly and honestly cast a duty on the Magistrate to apply his mind to the material placed before him and after duly considering the pros and cons of the matter , pass a speaking and well-reasoned order . He is not expected to put his signatures on the dotted line, or blindly ditto the report of the police signifying his lack of application of mind or giving the impression of being led by the nose by them."
7. Furthermore, the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as highlighted above, prescribe a criteria for making a cancellation report by the police and dealing with it, by a Magistrate. Therefore, the learned Magistrate should have also seen whether strict compliance of the said rules has been made by the police or otherwise.
8. Resultantly , the writ petition in hand is allowed , the order in question is set-aside , with a direction to the learned Area Magistrate, to take up the cancellation report again and after hearing all the concerned, perusing the record and fulfilling the legal requirements, pass a fresh speaking order . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.