' The petitioner seeks a direction to the S.H.O., respondent No,,1, for registration of case on the ground that the S.H.O. Is legally bound to register it both under section 154, Cr.P.C. And under Rule 24 of the Police Rules, 1934 being a member of law enforcement agency and the petitioner has a right to lodge an F.I.R. In case in which offence is committed with him and that sufficient evidence is available which is essential for such registration.
2. The background of the case as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition is that Muhammad Manzoor father of the petitioner had married three women including Mst. Tasleem Akhtar respondent No,,2 and that the respondents with their active connivance prepared a plan and murdered Muhammad Manzoor in furtherance of their common intention to digesting the property and cash of Muhammad Manzoor which was in lacs of rupees. They have abducted Muhammad Manzoor from Multan after getting 3,00,000 rupees in cash and 3-1/2 lacs prize bonds from National Saving Centre at Multan Cantt. The witnesses have seen Muhammad Manzoor while going in the company of respondents Nos.2 to 6 towards Multan Airport on 26-6-1998 at evening flight and on 1-7-1998 at about 9-30 a.m., dead body of Muhammad Manzoor reached at Multan but nobody from the respondents Nos.2 and 3 have come with the dead body although the respondents Nos.2 and 3 claimed that they went with Muhammad Manzoor deceased at Karachi.
On enquiry Mst. Tasleem Akhtar stated before the family members of the petitioner that the said miss happening has been done with her and she be forgiven. Attequr Rehman also confessed his guilt about murdering the deceased. An application was made to the District Magistrate, Multan for exhumation which was conducted in the supervision of Illaqa Magistrate and Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Multan. Parts of dead body were sent to the Chemical Examiner from which positive result was received. Learned counsel for the- petitioner has relied upon PLD 1997 Kar. 119; PLD 1997 Lah. 135; 1994 SCMR 1283; PLD 1972 Lah. 493 (Full Bench) and PLD 1971 SC 671.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had already set in motion the criminal proceedings by moving an application to the District Magistrate under section 176, Cr.P.C. And exhumation report was submitted by the learned Ilaqa Magistrate on 5-9-1998 in compliance with the order of the learned District Magistrate where he reported that no criminal case was made out and that it was a family dispute and that the exhumation may not be allowed. The learned District Magistrate without notice to the respondents and without considering the report of Magistrate ordered on 6-10-1998 for the exhumation of the dead body and exhumation was done and parts of the dead body were sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Chemical Examiner sent his report on 24-11-1998. The Assistant Chemical Examiner reported that tranquillizer is detected in the viscera. Thereafter, a report was obtained from the Bacteriologist, Government of Punjab, which came on 16-11-1998 to the effect that no opinion would be expressed' resulting the tranquillizer, then the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Multan, conducted examination on 8-12-1998 and 'reported that the deceased died on normal death. The respondents have submitted Annexures "A" to "A=43" which contain the history of the treatment of the deceased done by the heart specialist of the reputed hospital of. Pakistan according to which lexotanil and Friseur were advised to be used in his treatment since 1994 till death as the medicines. Ultimately Ziauddin Hospital, Karachi referred the deceased to Cardiologist for treatment as Annexure "A/35. He died on 30-6-1998 and death certificate is A/39 and the report is to the following effect: the cause of death is cardiopulmonary arrest, unstable angina acute extensive Aht-Wall MT. The ceremony of Kafan was performed by Eidhi Centre on 30-6-1998 at Karachi. Eidhi Centre, Karachi brought the dead body in van to Karachi Airport and from there it was brought to Multan and, thus, he was burried. It is further submitted that this Court is not subjected to vacuum. It is to see on both sides before passing any order. When questions by the Court as to why the extra-judicial confession was made by the two persons, he referred to Haji Muhammad Khan v. Ch. Khizar Hayat and 3 others PLD 1977 Lah. 424 (D.B.) where the point at issue was whether High Court should pass a mechanical order for registration of case under writ jurisdiction, their Lordships of D.B. Held that if the aid of the police is required and the offence of the petitioner is made out then the proper course for the petitioner is to move before the proper forum and make a private complaint. Relevant portion reads as under:-- "The exercise of power under Article 199 of the Constitution is subject to the condition that there is no adequate remedy provided by law. Such an adequate remedy is provided to a complainant under section 190 read with sections 200 to 203, Cr.P.C. Section 190 provides that a Magistrate may take cognizance upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes such offence. The procedure for dealing with such complaints is provided in sections 200 to 203, Cr.P.C. There may be cases where the evidence to prove the commission of an offence cannot be collected except through the police agency. Similarly, there may be cases where the entire evidence to prove the commission of such offence, is with the complainant. In the second category of cases it cannot be doubted that the complement before the Magistrate is an adequate remedy. In such cases, the High Court refuses to exercise in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The advisability of exercising a discretion in favor of petitioner can be considered only in a case where the evidence can be collected through the agency of the Police."
4. I have given due consideration to, the valuable arguments on both the sides.
5. Section 154, Cr.P.C. Is relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, it reads as under:-- "154. Information in cognizable cases.--- Every information relating to the commission of a 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; and every such information, whether given in writing or retired 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."
6. In the present case, a murder has been committed which is cognizable offence, witnesses to extra-judicial confession of the culprits are available and to collect other relevant material, it will not be possible without the proper investigation by the police as such I am convinced that the police should register the case and perform their lawful obligation. The writ petition is allowed and the S.H.O, Police Station, Multan Cant., is directed to record the statement of the petitioner at verbatim and proceed further strictly in accordance with law.
7. Writ petition stands disposed of.