1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--This petition is filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and grievance of the petitioner is that he is working as Head Dispenser in Railway Hospital, Sukkur and on 18.1.1989, he went to SDPO-II Sukkur, namely, Mr. Abdul Rahim Butt and informed him that his relatives Shahzado and others were wrongfully confined at Police Station Kandhra without registration of any case against them by SHO Abdul Jabbar Memon. SDPO-II went to the police station Kandhra and found Shahzado along with 5 others detained unlawfully under the orders of SHO. Such entry was made by SDPO-II in the daily diary dated 18-1-1989. Persons unlawfully detained were released by SDPO-II. SHO Abdul Jabbar Memon became infuriated and registered a false complaint against petitioner and others under sections 365, 377, 342,323/34, P.P.C. And section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 through one Allahwasayo Shaikh on 19.1.1989. Subsequently house of petitioner was raided by SHO Abdul Jabbar and police party and he was beaten up and taken to police station naked where he was maltreated and insulted and kept in lock-up. Thereafter petitioner was released on bail and he attempted to file case against S.H.O. For registering a false case against him but his report was not accepted and in consequence his FIR was not recorded. Prayer in the petition is that SHO P.S. Kandhra be ordered to register FIR against Abdul Jabbar Memon SHO and PC Abdul Hamid of P.S.Kandhra for offences under sections 324, 323, 355 PPC and 17 (3) of the Hudood Ordinance.
2. ' This petition was admitted to regular hearing vide order dated 28-2-1989 and notice was issued to respondent No,1, S.H.O., P.S. Kandhra and respondent No, 2 SDPO-II Sukkur (Abdul Rahim Butt) to appear in the Court. On 7-3-1989 S.H.O. Abdul Jabbar Memon was present in the Court when both the learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as respondents were heard in detail and the petition was allowed for reasons to be recorded later.
3. ' The controversial point involved in this petition is whether it is mandatory for S.H.O. Or any other officer at Police Station authorized in this behalf to register FIR of the complainant or it is open to him to refuse registration on the ground that no offence is made out. In this context reference can be made to sections 154 and 155 Cr.P.C. As they both relate to registration of FIRs, Section 154 Cr.P.C.Relates to information in cognizable cases and section 155, Cr.P.C. Relates to information in non-cognizable cases. Perusal of section 154, Cr.P.C. Clearly shows that it is mandatory in nature and in the said section at three places word "shall" is used by Legislature to emphasize the fact that officer at police station is mandatorily bound by law to register the FIR in cognizable cases and he cannot refuse registration on any ground. Reading of this section clearly shows that every information relating to the commission of cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of police station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant. First "shall" as stated above very clearly in unequivocal terms requires the police officer to reduce into writing information with regard to the cognizable offence. He cannot wriggle out of it on any ground and cannot say that office is not made out. Second "shall" is used in that section, when it goes on further to read that such statement shall be signed by the person giving it, which makes it compulsory for the police officer to get that information or complaint signed by the complainant and the third "shall" used in the same section is to the effect that such report shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf. The third "shall" contemplates maintenance of register under section 154 Cr.P.C. At police station. Section 154 is very clear and leaves no room at all for doubt or dispute about the fact that it is mandatory for police officer at Police Station to register report of the complainant in a cognizable offence and not only that but the procedure is also prescribed that report is to be reduced into writing and is to be signed by the complainant and is to be entered in 154, Cr.P. C.
4. Register.
5. ' So far non-cognizable offence is concerned, section 155, Cr.P.C. Provides that substance of such information shall be entered in a book to be kept aside for such purpose and informant is to be referred to the Magistrate. It is further provided that no police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without order of a Magistrate having power to try such case. After receiving such order from Magistrate, Police Officer can investigate the case and may exercise the powers in the same way as in a cognizable case. Joint perusal of both the sections mentioned above shows that the requirement of law is that the police officer has to record the F.I.R. Mandatorily of a cognizable case under section 154, Cr.P.C. But if it is a non-cognizable case then substance of such information is to be entered in the register maintained under section 155, Cr.P.C. But in each case refusal is out of question.
6. ' In support of what is stated above reference can be made to the case of Sawant v. S.H.O. Police Station Sadar, Kasur and another PLD 1975 Lah. 733 in which it is held that language of section 154, Cr.P.C. Is imperative and a Police Officer cannot refuse to register the case on the basis of counter- version given by accused and dub counter-version as false without first investigating the matter as his duty is to make investigation. In the case of M. Anwar v. S. H.O. Civil Lines Police Station, Lahore and another PLD 1972 Lah. 493 it is held that if there is an information relating to the commission of cognizable offence then it falls under section 154, Cr.P.C. And Police Officer is under statutory obligation to enter it in the prescribed register. Police Officer is bound to receive the complaint and enter it in the register. If he fails to perform his statutory duty as a public servant, he renders himself to be dealt with by his superior Officer for neglect of duty. It does not depend on the sweet will of police officer to register F.I.R. Or not. The question whether F.I.R. Is correct or not depends on the investigation which a police officer is to conduct under section 157, Cr.P.C. And if the contents of F.I.R. Turn out to be false action can be taken as contemplated under section 182 of Cr.P.C. Under which first informant shall be liable to punishment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. In the case of Nazir Ahmed v.
7. Khushi Muhammad and 2 others 1974 PCr.LJ 579 it was held that under section 154, Cr.P. C. Police Officer is statutorily bound to enter report of cognizable offence in prescribed register. Copy of the petition filed in the High Court disclosing commission of cognizable offence was sent to the police officer concerned with direction to register the case. Reference can also be made to the decision of Full Bench of Lahore High Court in the case of State v. Zulfikar All Bhutto and others PLD 1978 Lah.
8. 523 in which it is held that officer incharge of Police Station is bound to record F.I.R., detect, apprehend and bring offenders to justice. Police Officer though acting subject to the supervision of higher officers, yet cannot act arbitrarily, capriciously and whimsically and is as such bound by law as is any other person and is liable to penalty for violation of duty or wilful breach or neglect of any rule or regulation. Police Officer is to be left free to investigate without any interference from any other agency subject, of course, to lawful orders of competent authority or supervision of higher officers. In the case of Mst. Sarwar v. District Magistrate and others 1985 PCr.LJ 1436 High Court of Lahore directed Superintendent of Police to order registering of case against police officer, against whom there was allegation of rape and to see further advisability of entrusting investigation of the case to some higher police officer.
9. ' On this point additionally reference can be made to the case of Halim Sarwar v. S.H.O. Police Head Marala and 2 others 1984 PCr.LJ 2993 in which it is held that it is the duty of police officer to record information and proceed to investigate matter as provided under section 154, Cr.P.C. It is further observed that second F.I.R. Showing a different grievance could not be refused by police officer on the ground that F.I.R. Has been registered already on the basis of one-sided version. It is open to the police officer to proceed according to law for cancellation of second F.I.R. If he comes to the conclusion that second F.I.R. Is false or incorrect. In the case of Ghiasuddin v. S.H.O. Police Station Pindi Bhattian 1983 PCr.LJ 1085 it is held that officer incharge of police station is under legal obligation to enter information disclosing commission of cognizable offence in appropriate register and to conduct investigation in case so registered and such officer is at liberty to report about cancellation of case if ultimately such report is found baseless. In the case of Muhammad Zafar Iqbal v. Manzoor Ahmad 1986 PCr.LJ 2658 it is held that provisions of sections 154 and 157, Cr.P.C.
10. Make it incumbent upon officer incharge of a police station to record the first information report disclosing cognizable offence. The same is purport of section 23 of the Police Act, 1861 read with paragraph 25.17 of Police Rules, 1934. Police could not refuse to enter it in the register prescribed for the purpose. In the reported case petitioner was wounded by A.S.I. Against whom petitioner wanted to register the case but there was resistance and petition was allowed and S.P. Sialkot was directed to register criminal case against that A.S.I.
11. S.H.O. Abdul Jabbar Memon present in the Court stated that he is under suspension for other reasons and in his place there is another S.H.O. Muhammad Paryal who is now incharge of P.S. Kandhra. Learned A.A.-G. Has conceded the legal position and stated that this petition is to be allowed.
12. ' For the facts and reasons stated above we allow this petition and direct S.H.O. Police Station Kandhra to register F.I.R. Of the petitioner as allowed under the law. 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.