' Through this writ petition, Muhammad Shall petitioner seeks the directions of this Court to the S.H.O. Of Police Station City, Burewala (respondent No,2) for the registration of a case in terms of his application annexed 'H' and a direction to D.I.-G. Multan Range (respondent No,1), for the entrustment of its investigation to Range Crime, Multan, to be conducted under his personal supervision.
2. The allegations in the writ petition are that case F.I.R. No,44 was registered on 22-5-1992 under section 324, P.P.C. On the complaint of Javid Haider Shah Inspector/S.H.O., Burewala (respondent No,3) against Muhammad Salim, the son of the petitioner, and four others, alleging assault on him resulting in injuries on his buttock caused by dagger blows attributed to Muhammad Salim, the son of the petitioner. Annoyed by this incident, respondents Nos.6 to 9, being police officers of different police stations, registered false cases at different police stations. For instance, case F.I.R. No,86 was registered on 22-5-1992 under sections 365, 353, 186/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Sahuka; case F.I.R.
No,61 was registered on the same day under sections 324, 353/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Fateh Shah; case F.I.R. No,62 was registered at the same police station under section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance as also under section 13 of the said Ordinance against Zulfiqar; and case F.I.R.
No,63 was registered at the same police station under the same provisions of law against Muhammad Salim son of the petitioner. The version of the occurrence in the last mentioned case was that he was arrested by Mian Talib Sukhera S.I./S.H.O. Of Police Station Fateh Shah after an encounter. The petitioner alleged that in fact his son Muhammad Salim was produced by Ch. Muhammad Din son of Barkat Ali Dogar and Ch. Maqbool Ahmad son of Muhammad Tufail Dogar, both residents of 495/EB, on 22-5-1992 at Police Station Burewala as he was wanted by the police in case F.I.R. No,144, dated 22-5-1992 registered at the instance of respondent No,3.
' He was taken into custody by Amir respondent No,4 and Fraz respondent No,5, both sons of Inspector Javid Haider Shah, respondent No,3, when he was taken to the premises of THQ Hospital, Burewala, where respondent No,3 stood admitted in injured condition, and started beating him.
Respondent No,4 in addition to respondents Nos.6 to 9, who are police officers, also participated in the merciless beating of Muhammad Salim and his companion Zulfiqar alias Jhappa. He further alleged that S.I. Talib Sukhera gave blows with his kicks on the right side of the forehead and left ear of Muhammad Salim, and Zulfiqar alias Jhappa sustained injuries at his arms and hand. He fell down and respondents Nos.8 and 9 gave him shoe beating on the different parts of his body, as a result he became unconscious. Similarly, according to him, respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6 gave beating to his son Muhammad Salim, hitting on different parts of his body and as he was being beaten, respondent No,3 went on exhorting his sons not to spare his assailants and acting on his exhortation, his sons jumped on the chest of Muhammad Salim and pressed it so hard that he became unconscious. When the conditions of both the victims on account of merciless beating became serious, respondents Nos.3 to 9 hatched a conspiracy in order to cover up their illegal acts and concocted the registration of case F.I.R. No,63 at Police Station Fateh Shah through respondent No,7 under the Arms Ordinance against his son Muhammad Salim and, vide F.I.R. No,62 at the same police station against Zulfiqar alias Jhappa, showing that the latter sustained some injuries during the encounter and on his apprehension by the police. Both the injured, according to him, were admitted to the hospital in a precarious condition and his son Muhammad Salim ultimately died on the following day in the hospital on account of injuries sustained by him in the manner aforesaid. His dead body was subjected to autopsy and the doctor conducting the post-mortem examination declared injury No,10 located on his chest as fatal, he added. He further alleged that he approached S.H.O. Of Police Station City, Burewala (respondent No,2) for the registration of the case against the accused persons responsible for the murder of Muhammad Salim and attempted murder of Zulfiqar alias Jhappa but he refused to register the case and even the higher police officers did not listen to him, hence this writ petition.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Multan, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has opposed the admission of the writ petition to regular hearing. He submits that since Muhammad Salim, the son of the petitioner, had died in police custody on account of certain injuries sustained by him during the course of his encounter with the police (when he was absconding after assaulting Javid Haider Shah Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station City Burewala) under the orders of the District Magistrate, Vehari, a magisterial enquiry has been conducted by Rai Muhammad Awan Khan A.C./Magistrate 1st Class, Burewala. He adds that vide his report, dated 25-61992 the Magistrate has concluded that Muhammad Salim had died on account of the injuries sustained by him at the hands of police during police encounter when he was defying his arrest by the police in a hand to hand fight in his attempt to escape. According to the learned Law Officer, after conclusion of judicial enquiry and exoneration of respondents Nos.3 to 9, no useful purpose would be served by the registration of the case against them.
4. It is an admitted position that Muhammad Salim, the son of the petitioner, sustained injuries at the hands of some police officers, as a result of which he died in the hospital on the following day.
There is, however, difference between the version of the occurrence given by some of the respondents and the one given by the petitioner. A Magistrate, has, under directions of the District Magistrate, Vehari, conducted judicial enquiry into the incident and he has justified police action against Muhammad Salim and his companion Zulfiqar alias Jhappa in causing them injuries.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner attacks the findings of the enquiry Magistrate by describing them as one-sided and partial. Muhammad Salim, the son of the petitioner, and his companion Zulfiqar alias Jhappa, no doubt, appear to have a criminal past and seem to be desperate in their behaviour but the police, or for that matter, the sons of the police officer, who was allegedly injured by them, could not take the law in their own hands and subject them to physical violence after apprehending them. How far they are liable for their act, this question is to be determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Anyhow, I feel that, after the judicial enquiry having been held by a Magistrate under the directions of the District Magistrate, Vehari, resulting in the exoneration of respondents Nos.3 to 9, no useful purpose will be served in directing the registration of the case against them as the same is, of necessity, to be investigated by some police officer, who in all probability, is not going to say anything against his colleagues. In view of the allegations of the petitioner, it appears to be a case of the kind, which does not require collection of evidence by the police. The petitioner can easily manage the collection and production of the evidence in support of the direct complaint to the Court if he chooses to file. This, in my opinion, would be a better course and more efficacious a remedy than the registration of the case by the police and its!
Investigation by them.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the conclusion of arguments has remarked that though direct complaint in the Court is equally an efficacious remedy and his client might go in for it, yet unfortunately it is not given the attention that it deserves as compared to a challan case and this is its discouraging aspect. He has expressed the apprehension that if his client chooses to institute a complaint against respondents Nos.3 to 9. The Illaqa Magistrate, under their formidable influence, may not send it up to the Court of Session.
7. The law has provided an alternate remedy to an aggrieved person of filing a direct complaint in the Court concerned, instead of going to the police for the registration of a case, and its taking congnizance by recording preliminary evidence and summoning the accused for facing trial if a prima facie case is made out against him. But unfortunately it has not been popular with the members of public and the persons wronged generally take recourse to the police for the registration of the cases, their investigation and prosecution of the accused in the Courts by submitting challans against them.
8. Aggrieved members of public on the criminal side generally prefer to go to the police for the registration of cases than filing complaints in the Courts directly. The main reason therefor is the better effectiveness of the former due to its promptitude in dealing with the wrong doers in the matter of their arrest as compared to the latter, despite the fact that it is shorter. Another cause for the preference of the former was that it was less expensive than the latter inasmuch as an aggrieved person could straightaway go to the police station situated within his easy reach and set the criminal law in motion against his opponent by getting a case registered without incurring any expenses therefor, while in the latter system he has first to engage a lawyer and pay him heavy fee for drafting the complaint, filing it in the Court of Illaq Magistrate and then pursuing it. Yet another factor which discourages an aggrieved person from availing the remedy of direct complaint to the Courts concerned is the indifference of the presiding officers towards the complaint cases, their reluctance to write preliminary evidence and unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings before passing an order for summoning the accused and then apathy of the police to serve summons or warrants on the accused. On the other hand, the attitude of the police in the registration of cases has also radically changed. The registration of a case, even a genuine one, has become an uphill task on account of various malpractices at the level of police stations and indifference or ineffectiveness of the supervising police officers, who are keen to keep the crime figures artificially low to avoid adverse reflection on their performance. So much so that people, as in this case, are swa rming the High Court by engaging expensive lawyers and paying them heavy fees to invoke its Constitutional jurisdiction for seeking its directions for the registration of cases despite the fact that the cases so registered are often cancelled due to antagonistic attitude of the police towards Courts' directions. Thus, the aggrieved persons are being driven from pillar to post, cursing the system of justice. In a situation like this, the subordinate Courts must come to the rescue of such persons by performing their duty of receiving their complaints directly, taking prompt action thereon and providing them effective reliefs.
9. To achieve this end, the Government, in the interest of its own effective existence and saving the situation from going bad to worse, must activate the Courts of Illaqa Magistrate through the District Magistrate in receiving the complaints and dealing with them promptly and effectively without referring them back to the police for inquiry.
10. Here I may point out for the urgent attention of the appropriate Legislature to consider the desirability of doing away with the procedure of sending up the challans of Session cases and the accused by the Illaqa Magistrates to the Court of Session for trial, after receiving the challans from the concerned police station, as provided in section 190(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This procedure, which has been in vogue for about two decades, has served no useful purpose. It is, rather, a snag and unnecessary step, wasting the time and delaying the trial, doing more harm than good.
11. With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
Writ .