MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J: -- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents Nos.1 to 6 to register a case against respondents Nos.7 to 19 on the basis of a written report submitted to respondent No. 3 by the petitioners on 4-1-1990.
2. The petitioners' case is that they are owners of land bearing Khasra NAbs.292, 287, 288, 281 and 280 measuring 7 Kanals 5 Marlas alongwith three Kacha houses, situated in village Sheikhul Bandi.
Respondents 7 to 19 un-authorisedly occupied the land for which a civil suit for the recovery of the possession was brought which was decreed in their favour on 13-3-1986. An appeal was filed by the respondents which was dismissed by the learned District Judge Abottabad on 6-5-1987. Thereafter the petitioners brought execution proceedings and the possession of the land was given to them in presence of local police and the Magistrate on 31-10-1989. Two months thereafter respondents 7 to 19 took forcible possession of the property in dispute in disregard to the Court proceedings.
Accordingly the matter was reported to the local police but to no, effect. They have been approaching the senior police officers but no action so far has been taken and instead of registering a case against the respondents 7 to 19, the Senior Superintendent of Police Abbottabad vide his memo dated 20-5-1990 addressed to D.I.-G. Returned the application of the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the police was bound under section 154 Cr.P.C. To register a case on the report of the petitioners as contemplated in the section itself and by denying the compliance they have refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law and thus slacked in duty for no valid reasons. He further contended that respondents 1 to 6 by not complying with the requirements of law have also violated the Constitutional rights provided to the citizens and thus disgraced and violated the legal and Constitutional guarantees.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 6 contended that the police after the receipt of written report conducted inquiry and found that the possession was not handed over to the petitioners who had compromised the matter with the respondents 7 to 19. He further contended that the written report was sent to the concerned authorities for taking appropriate action but after inquiry it was found that no cognizable offence has taken place therefore no case was registered. The learned counsel for respondents 7 to 19 contended that they are in possession of the property in dispute as owners where they have built houses. He submitted that no suit was ever instituted against respondents 8 to 19 and the suit referred to above was against respondent No.7. He further contended that since respondents 8 to 19 were not party to the earlier litigation therefore they were not bound by the decree. It is absolutely incorrect that possession of the property was given to the petitioners. He further contended that the respondents are being harassed by the petitioners.
4-A. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record of the case.
5. Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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". Petitioners have made certain allegations of criminal trespass against respondents 7 to 19. S.H.O. Respondent No. 3 in his comments has admitted the receipt of the complaint (written report) which was entrusted to A.S.I.
For inquiry under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. However, neither the report nor any other material in this respect was produced in Court. Perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition reveal that petitioners have alleged the commission of a sizable offence. The law requires the officer incharge of the police station to reduce into writing the information given to him in the event of commission of a cognizable offence. In the present case written report was made by the petitioners which discloses the commission of the cognizable offence, therefore, respondent No.3 under the law was bound to record the report. In the case of M. Anwar v. S.H.O. Civil Lines, Lahore and another reported in PLD Lah. 493 it has been held that "if there is an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence it falls, under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a police officer is under a statutory obligation to enter in the prescribed register. The condition precedent is simply twofold; first, it must ire an information and secondly, it must relate to a cognizable offence on the face of it and not merely in the light of subsequent events. A police officer is bound to receive a complaint when it is preferred to him, or where the commission of an offence is reported to him orally he is bound to take down the complaint. If he does not incorporate in the register a complaint so made, he fails to perform a statutory duty as a public servant and, therefore, renders himself to be dealt with by his superior officers for neglect of duty. Thus, it does not depend on the sweet will of a police officer who may or may not record it. The information referred to in section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears to us to be something in the nature of a complaint, or accusation, or at least information of a crime given with the object of putting the police in motion in order to investigate. In the case of a first information, it is not required by law that the police officer is to receive it only if it is given in writing and to record it only if in his opinion it is correct. The question whether or not it is correct depends on the investigation which a police officer is to conduct under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The guarantee of the correctness of the first information is ensured by section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code under which if any person gives the first information statement to a police officer which is recorded under section 154 o1` the Code of Criminal Procedure and if it ultimately turns out to be false, the informant shall be liable to punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with both. In the instant case, the information was being laid by Mr, M. Anwar who is a leading Barrister, and Mr. Manzar Bashir who is a reputed public figure and a known respectable citizen, who could not at all be regarded to be oblivious of the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and in our view, the police officer concerned needed no more guarantee of correctness of the information and was not justified in abstaining from entering the same in the prescribed register, either under any provision of law or on facts. Such a practice is altogether contrary to the provisions of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
6. In view of the above, we would accept this writ petition and direct respondent No. 5 to register a case as per written report of the petitioner and investigate the same in accordance with law, and if after the investigation it turns out to be false the informants can be proceeded against accordingly.
N.H.Q./1373/P