1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.-- By short order on 7-3-1989 after hearing Advocates appearing for both parties and in the light of case-law cited for reasons to be recorded later, this petition was admitted and finally allowed. Detailed reasons are as under:- ' Briefly stated relevant facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 are that the grievance of the petitioner is that his two relatives, namely, Taj Muhammad son of Muhammad Luqman and Abdul Rashid son of Muhammad Luqman were arrested by S.H.O. Police Station Panoakil on 21-12-1988 at 5-00 p.m. For offence under sections 107, 151, Cr.P.C. But the same S.H.O. Who is impleaded in this petition as respondent No,2, manipulated the record to show arrest of the detained persons named above to be on 22-12-1988 instead of 21-12-1988. In this context attempt was made by the petitioner to file F.I.R. At the police station against the S.H.O. Of P.S. Panoakil but he refused to register F.I.R. Under section 154, Cr.P.C.
2. ' On 21-2-1989 when this petition was fixed in the Court for Katcha Peshi, notice was issued to learned AA.-G. To ascertain the factual position. On 28-2-1989 order was passed by the Court that since there is allegation directly against S.H.O. P.S. Panoakil, who is respondent No,2, that he has refused to register F.I.R. He was ordered to be present in the Court. On 7-3-1989 S.H.O. All Nawaz Abro of P.S. Panoakil was present in the Court and both Mr. Abdul Fatah Malik Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, AA.-G. For respondents were heard at great length and relevant case-law on the law point involved was cited after which order was passed of admitting the petition and allowing the same as stated above.
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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.Rs, Section 154, Cr.P.C. Relates to information in codnizable 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 emphasise the fact that officer at police station is mandatorily bound by law to register the F.I.R. 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 a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer incharge 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 offence 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 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 P.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 Ahmad v.
7. Khushi Muhammad and 2 others 1974 P Cr. L J 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 Ali 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 of neglect of any rule or regulation. Police Officer is to be left free to investigate without any interference from any other agency subejct, 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 P Cr. L J 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. ' In view of legal position discussed and case-law produced in support thereof learned AA.-G.
10. Conceded to legal position. Mr. Abdul Fatah Malik stated that report in writing which is to be filed as F.I.R. Is available and S.H.O. Present in the Court stated that the same would be registered without fail. In the circumstances and for the facts and reasons stated above the petition was not only admitted but was finally allowed.