1. ' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.--- The present appeal has been directed against the order of the High Court, dated 19-10-1995, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed in limited.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that a report was lodged by the appellant at City Police Station, Muzaffarabad, alleging that his father, Raja Muhammad Ashraf, who was a retired civil servant, was admitted in C.M.H., Muzaffarabad on 13-8-1995 as he felt pain in his abdomen; he was shifted to I.T.C. Ward of the hospital next day where his condition deteriorated but no doctor was available to administer him any treatment. Subsequently, the appellant obtained. The death certificate from the hospital on 19-8-1995 for getting the pension of his father transferred to his mother but no cause of death was mentioned in the relevant column of the certificate; thus he became suspicious about the cause of the death of his father and made an application to the S.H.O., City Police Station, Muzaffarabad, alleging that his father died as a result of negligence of concerned doctors and staff of C.M.H. As no treatment was given to the deceased from 13-8-1995 to.14-8-1995.
3. He prayed for registration of a criminal case against the concerned persons but no case was registered by the S.H.O. And he was obliged to make similar applications to respondents Nos.2 and 3 but they also failed to take any action. Consequently, the appellant filed writ petition in the High Court praying that appropriate writ might be issued against respondents Nos.1 to 3, i,e, S.H.O., City Police Station, Muzaffarabad, S.S.P., Muzaffarabad and D.I.-G. Headquarters, Muzaffarabad, to register a case and find out the cause of death of his father.
4. ' The learned Judge in the High Court, before hearing preliminary arguments, sent for the relevant record from the hospital; and brought on record the written statements of the respondents and the doctors concerned. Thereafter, he heard the preliminary arguments and dismissed the writ petition observing that the father of the appellant had died as a result of an heart attack, despite the fact that he was given proper treatment. It may be stated at the very outset that none of the doctors whose statements were brought on record by the High Court was arrayed as respondent in the writ petition but all the same the learned Judge in the High Court deemed it fit to bring on record their written statements and that, too, without arraying them as party. It may be also observed that S.H.O. And respondent No,2 filed separate written statements in which it was contended that as the application for registering case was ambiguous and did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, they deemed it proper to hold a preliminary inquiry before registering a criminal case under section 154, Cr.P.C.
5. ' We have heard the arguments and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abdul Hamid Shahid, Advocate, has argued that it has been clearly alleged in the F.I.R. That cause of death of father of the appellant was negligence of the concerned doctors and staff. Thus, the S.H.O. Concerned was bound to register a case and investigate the same. The learned counsel has further maintained that no preliminary inquiry is envisaged under law when a report is made to a S.H.O. Alleging that a cognizable offence has been committed. The learned counsel has also tried to make out a case that in fact the death of Muhammad Ashraf, the father of the appellant, was due to the negligence of the concerned doctors and the staff of C.M.H., Muzaffarabad. The learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities in support of his contentions:-- ' In case reported as M. Anwar v. The Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Police Station, Lahore PLD 1972 Lah. 493, it was observed that a Police Officer is under obligation to enter the report of a commission of a cognizable offence and the fact as to whether the information is correct or not would depend upon the subsequent investigation of the Police Officer under section 154, Cr. P . C .
6. ' In case reported as Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah v. The State 1993 SCMR 550, it was held that the provisions contained in section 154, Cr.P.C. Bind the Police Officer to register F.I.R. Of a cognizable offence.
7. ' In Ch. Ataullah v. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Kahloon 1973 PCr.LJ 69, it has been observed that whether an offence reported does or does not amount to cognizable offence depends upon the information given and not on the fact as to what Police Officer thinks in that regard In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, Advocate, has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has argued that as the application given to S.H.O. Was ambiguous and did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the respondent No,1 was not bound to register the case on the application of the appellant. He has further argued that in view of the averments made in the application, S.H.O. Rightly proceeded to make a preliminary inquiry for ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence was in fact committed or not, before registering a case under section 154, Cr.P.C. He has cited following authorities in support of his contentions:-- ' In case reported as Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18, it was observed that in case of commission of cognizable offence receipt and recording F.I.R. Is not condition precedent to set in motion the criminal investigation but such investigation can be started by the Police Officer concerned on his knowledge or as a result of credible information furnished to him. Identical view was taken in cases reported as M. Bashir Saigol v. The State PLD 1964 Lah. 148 and Rehman v. The State PLD 1968 Lah.
8. 464.
9. ' It may be stated here that the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents do not deal with the legal proposition which is involved in the present case. In the said authorities the proposition called for resolution was as to whether police can legally investigate a criminal case without registering it on an F.I.R. Whereas the proposition involved in the present case is as to whether when an ambiguous F.I.R. Of commission of an offence is lodged at a police station, the concerned Police Officer can refuse to register case without first making a preliminary inquiry regarding the truth of the allegations made or the nature of the offence committed.
10. ' We have given due consideration to the arguments raised at the Bar. It may be stated here that the proposition as to whether when the report relating to the commission of a cognizable offence in a criminal case is given at a police station, the officer concerned is legally bound to register a criminal case or he can refuse to do the same on the ground that he doubted the truth of the allegation made in the F.I.R. That he would register the case only if he is satisfied about the truth of the allegations came up before this Court in an unreported case entitled Muhammad Afzal v.
11. Najeeb Ali Khan (1996 PCr.LJ 1144), decided on 17-2-1996. After reviewing the whole case-law on the subject, it was observed as under:-- "After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we have reached the, conclusion that section 154, Cr.P.C. Reproduced above, is mandatory provision and whenever an information disclosing a prima facie commission of a cognizable offence is made the concerned Police Officer is bound to enter it in the prescribed book and then proceed in accordance with law. It may he noted that the phrase First Information Report' is not mentioned in section 154."
12. ' Identical view was taken in case entitled Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Afzaal Civil Appeal No,89 of 1995, decided on 29-2-1996. It may be stated here that in the above-cited cases decided by this Court it was held that when a report of commission of cognizable offence is lodged at a police station, the Police Officer concerned is bound to register a case but as in those cases the allegations of the petitioners concerned had already been investigated in the counter-cases registered by the police, it was not deemed proper to direct the Police Officer concerned to register fresh cases.
13. ' The precise question in the instant case is as to whether keeping in view the contents of the application made by the appellant to the S.H.O., it can be said that a cognizable offence appeared to have been committed and, thus, the S.H.O. Was bound to register a case without making any preliminary inquiry satisfy himself about the nature of offence committed, if any.
14. ' After giving our due consideration to the arguments raised at the Bar and attending circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the application lodged by the appellant at City Police Station, Muzaffarabad, does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It is clearly mentioned in the said application that a suspicion regarding the cause of death of Muhammad Ashraf Khan, the father of the appellant was created because no cause of death was recorded in the relevant column of the death certificate. During the course of arguments it has come to our notice that in fact the cause of death is recorded in the said certificate as "I.H.D."; which means 'ischemic heart disease'. Thus, the very foundation of the suspicion created in the mind of appellant vanishes. Although it has also been averred in the application that as the deceased was not attended by the concerned doctors on the relevant dates, his death occurred due to their negligence. It would be expedient to reproduce below the relevant part from the said application which is as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' It is evident from the above extract that it has been also alleged. In the application that action may be taken against ". Obviously, no person has been named in the application and as such it cannot be said that action had to be taken against any known culprits. Besides, subsequent averment with regard to the alleged negligence 9f the doctors concerned, cannot be read in isolation{{URDU TEXT}} from the expression "{{URDU TEXT}} " which occurs in the earlier part of the extract, reproduced above. Obviously, the application, dated 24-8-1995 does not indicate clearly that a cognizable offence had been committed and the S.H.O. Was bound to register a case under section 154, Cr.P.C. Irrespective of the findings of the High Court that Muhammad Ashraf died as a result of heart attack despite the proper treatment given to him by the doctors, the application, dated 28-4-1995 is otherwise ambiguous and does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Under these circumstances, the S.H.O. Concerned was justified to make a preliminary inquiry as to whether the death of Muhammad Ashraf Khan, deceased, was a result of a culpable act or commission and, thus, a cognizable offence was committed which necessitated the registration of a case under section 154, Cr.P.C. As has already been stated, the stand taken by respondent No,1 in the written statement is that he was holding a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the factum of cause of death of the deceased with a view to ascertain whether a cognizable offence has been committed or not. We are of the opinion that in view of the averments made in the aforesaid application, it cannot be said that respondent No,1 or other Police Officers were guilty of non-performance of any duty cast .Upon them by law. We were informed by the learned counsel for the respondents during the arguments that as the appellant had filed writ petition in the High Court, no further probe was made by the S.H.O. In the matter. It may be pointed out that if report made to a Police Officer is ambiguous and merely based on a doubt, the officer concerned is not bound to register a case straightaway without probing into the matter. However, we would like to make it clear that if any such report clearly indicates the commission of a cognizable offence, the Police Officer cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that first he would satisfy himself about the truth of allegations made and then register a case; in such an eventuality, he is bound to register a case forthwith. We may also observe here that the findings of the High Court that Muhammad Ashraf Khan, deceased, died as a result of heart failure and not due to negligence of any doctor or other hospital staff were not necessary for the disposal of the writ petition and the said findings are hereby annulled. The High Court should have disposed of the writ petition in view of the averments made in the application addressed to the S.H.O. And should not have embarked upon the inquiry with regard to the cause of the death of Muhammad Ashraf in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
15. ' In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.