1. ' IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.-- Dilawar Ali Khan, the petitioner herein, has made a grievance of the Station House Officer, Ferozabad Police Station, Karachi who refused to register first information report on a complaint made to him. On his failure to do so the petitioner approached the Deputy Inspector- General of Police, who addressed a letter on 24-1-1987 directing the Senior Superintendent of Police Karachi (East) to register his complaint and investigate it. Despite the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, it appears that the complaint of the petitioner was not registered at the concerned police station with the result that the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction of this Court to the Station House Officer Ferozabad Police Station, Karachi to register his complaint.
2. ' Jamil Akhtar Kiani, Station House Officer, Ferozabad Police Station in his parawise comments filed in the petition has admitted that the petitioner did actually approach them to register a complaint against one Ghulam Kadir Excise and Taxation Officer on 7-1-1987 and 17-1-1987. On an inquiry, it was found by them that the accused Excise and Taxation Officer had earlier registered two cases against the petitioner under Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979. On the basis of such inquiry without registering the first information report, the Station House Officer felt that an attempt was being made by the petitioner to A cause harassment to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer and therefore, they did not record the first information report.
3. ' Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has mainly urged that whenever any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is given to an officer incharge of a police station, he has no option but to reduce it to writing in a book prescribed by the Provincial Government for the purpose of registering such complaints under section 154, Criminal Procedure Code. Police can only then commence investigation of an offence under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. In case on investigation a case is found to be false, consequences as provided by law will follow and the complainant prosecuted under section 182 or section 211, Pakistan Penal Code. He has relied on the cases reported in 1986 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal 2658, 1986 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal 183 and PLD 1977 Lah. 424 ' Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmed, learned Assistant Advocate-General Sind in reply to above contentions stated that in the circumstances of this particular case when the police officer considered it to be a false accusation he was not obliged to register the first information report. In support of his contentions, he relied on the cases reported in 1975 SCMR 149, 1983 SCMR 436 and 1979 SCMR 490.
4. ' Out of the cases relied on by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sind the case reported in 1975 SCMR 149 deals with the refusal of, police to register first information report at the instance of the accused person, in case which was already registered and investigated by them. In the circumstances it was held that the petitioner in that case was not entitled to the discretionary relief by the High Court. In another case reported in 1983 SCMR 436 a different version was sought to be given in respect of the previous occurrence which already stood registered with the police. It was held that the police being competent to investigate the case and duty bound to discover true facts registration of a fresh complaint under the circumstances was not called for. While in third case reported in 1979 SCMR 490, the petition was dismissed as the High Court did not consider it necessary to register another version of the incident in respect of which first information report was already registered and thoroughly investigated by police. The petitioner in that case could conveniently approach the Court by filing a direct complaint. The cases mentioned above are distinguishable and have no application to the present case.
5. ' The offences under the Criminal Procedure Code have been divided into two categories (i) cognizable offences, and (ii) non-cognizable offences. In case information regarding cognizable offence is communicated either in writing or orally the Officer Incharge of the Police Station is bound to record it in a book prescribed by the Provincial Government for the purpose. In such cases he does not require any orders of the Magistrate having jurisdiction to commence investigation of the offence. He on his own has to take steps to investigate the offence. Proviso (h) to subsection (1) of section 157 Criminal Procedure Code enables a Police Officer not to enter investigation in cases he feels that sufficient grounds exist for not doing so. It is, therefore, true that a Police Officer is not bound to investigate each and every case but he can only make up his mind after B the information relating to a cognizable offence has actually been incorporated in the book kept under section 154 Criminal Procedure Code. In case of non-cognizable offences though a Police Officer incharge of the police station on his own is not competent to investigate the case yet he is by provision made under section 155, Criminal Procedure Code required to record such information as well in another hook kept for the purpose. He is then required to direct the complainant to approach a Magistrate having jurisdiction. It is only on the orders of a Magistrate having power to try such cases that a Police Officer can enter into investigation of non-cognizable offence. In either of two categories of offences the Police Officer is bound to act either under section 154 or under section 155 Criminal Procedure Code and register the complaint in respective registers whenever it is made to him. In case he refuses to act under the aforesaid sections, he fails to perform his duties which he is required by law to do so. In the present' case the Deputy Inspector-General of Police had ordered registration and investigation of the complaint of the petitioner. The concerned officer could not' in face of clear orders omit to comply with orders of his superior and be content with a back reference. He was duty bound to register the complaint and proceed' in accordance with law and act according to the result of the investigation.
6. ' As discussed above the Station House Officer Ferozabad, Police Station was required by law to register the case filed by the petitioner more particularly so as he also had specific orders to that effect issued by his superior officer, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. We had by our short order passed on 5-12-1988 declared the refusal of respondent to register the first information report and non-compliance of the orders of the Deputy Inspector-General dated 24-11987 to be without lawful authority and directed the respondent No,3 that whenever the petitioner appears at the police station to lodge his report they D should comply with the orders of the Deputy Inspector- General dated 24-1-19871 and record the report in accordance with law.
7. ' Above are the reasons for the said decision. .