' Ch. Alla-ud-Din petitioner filed this petition against the Superintendent of Police, District Sargodha and the S.H.O. Police Station Bhera, District Sargodha getting them restrained from causing any harassm ent and humiliation to him or his family members on the pretext of the arrest of his son Rana Muhammad Anwar whom he had already disinherited and getting an order passed against the said respondents to act strictly in accordance with law.
2. According to Ch. Alla-ud-Din, petitioner he was aged 70 years who was elected as a Councilor of Municipal Committee, Bhera, District Sargodha for the 4th term during the month of May, 1998 and that politically he was a member of Piracha Group which is opposed to the Government Group these days. The Government group in Municipal Committee, Bhera was desirous to contest the election of Chairman of Municipal Committee and he was not siding with the said group.
According to the petitioner he had disinherited his son Rana Muhammad Anwar and had got published the proclamation containing the said fact in Daily Jang, dated 26-11-1997. He maintained that on 8-10-1998 at the behest of the Government group of the Councilors he was summoned by the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha in connection with an inquiry on an application moved by one Abdus Samad son of Waheed Ahmad resident of Block No,,33, Sargodha against his said son Rana Muhammad Anwar alleging therein some dispute of money with his son. He was asked by the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha/respondent No,,1 about the whereabouts of his son Rana Muhammad Anwar who intimated him (S.P. Sargodha) that he had already disinherited him and he was not in know of his whereabouts. He alleged that at the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha he was detained by the S.H.O. Police Station, Bhera for two days causing immense harassm ent and disgrace to him. He averred that he and his family members were being harassed and humiliated at the behest of the Councilors of Government group without any legal or factual justification, that all the efforts to restrain the respondents in the matter have remained futile and that hence the writ petition.
3. The Superintendent of Police sent the comments wherein he expressed that Muhammad Anwar son of Alla-ud-Din petitioner extorted an amount of Rs,2,60,000 from Abdus Samad and in that connection he directed the S.H.O. Police Station Bhera to ensure justice and legal action on merits who summoned Alla-ud-Din petitioner to enquire from him the whereabouts of his son Rana Muhammad Anwar. It is narrated in the comments that during the inquiry initiated on the application of Abdus Samad the information was imparted by Alla-ud-Din that he had no connection with his son Rana Muhammad Anwar whom he had disinherited being disobedient who, however, promised to produce his son Rana Muhammad Anwar before the police on 19-10- 1998 and that in the meanwhile Ch. Alla-ud-Din petitioner filed this writ petition. He mentioned in the comments that in compliance of the order passed by this Court the inquiry on the application of Abdus Samad has been stopped till the decision of the writ petition.
4. In the light of the aforesaid version of the Superintendent of Police Sargodha respondent No,,1, I passed the order to get the further comments from him as to how he was competent to proceed in respect of the aforesaid type of allegation being the head of the local police of District Sargodha when legally an allegation of the aforesaid type has to be dealt with and processed with under the Immigration Ordinance, 1979 keeping in view the provisions of section 17/22 of the said Ordinance, 1979. Pursuant thereto the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha expressed his competence to hold the inquiry in the matter under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure who also expressed that he had initiated the inquiry in the matter under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. In the rejoinder the petitioner objected to the said authority projected by the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate- General and gone through the record maintained by the police. I am in full agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed that there are water-tight compartments of jurisdiction of different branches of the police. If a murder case cannot be registered in Police Station F.I.A. Having the territorial jurisdiction over District Sargodha how a case of the aforesaid type prima facie falling under section 17/22 of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979 can be registered at local police station i,e, at Police Station Bhera, District Sargodha. In this regard I have to refer to section 3(1) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1979 (Act No,,VIII of 1975) which reads as under:-- "Section 3. Constitution of the Agency.--- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Federal Government may constitute an Agency to be called the Federal Investigation Agency for inquiry into, and investigation of, the offences specified in the Schedule, including an attempt or conspiracy to commit, and abetment of any such offence."
7. A perusal of the Schedule to the said Act No,,VIII of 1975 has made out that the offences punishable under the Immigration Ordinance, 1979 are included therein. It means that the inquiry has to be initiated by the Federal Investigation Agency in a case falling under the Immigration Ordinance, 1979. The assertion made by the Superintendent of Police that he is competent to hold the inquiry in any matter under his general jurisdiction in view of the provisions of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure need not be given the weight. In this regard for the proper appreciation of his assertion section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reproduced as under:-- "Section 202. Postponement for issue of process.- (1) Any Court, on receipt of a complaint of offence of which it is authorised to take cognizance, or which has been sent to it under section 190, subsection (3), or transferred to it under section 191 or section 192, may if it thinks fit, for reason to be recorded, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and either inquire into the case itself or direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by a Police Officer, or by such other person as it thinks, fit for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint: ' Provided that, save where the complaint has been made by a Court, no such direction shall be made unless the complainant has been examined on oath under the provisions of section 200.
(2) A Court of Session may, instead of directing an investigation under the provisions of subsection (1), direct the investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to it for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint.
(3) If any inquiry or investigation under this section is made by a person not being a Magistrate, or a Police Officer such person shall exercise all the powers conferred by this Code on an Officer-in- Charge of a police station, except that he shall not have power to arrest without warrant.
(4) Any Court inquiring into a case under this section may, if it thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath."
8. it is proper to express that section 202 forms part of Chapter XVI under the caption "Of Complaints to Magistrates". This section empowers any Court to send a complaint filed before it to any Judicial Officer subordinate to it or to any Police Officer. This section does not empower the Police Officer to hold an inquiry or investigate a case about which the Police Officer has no jurisdiction. The police can proceed under Chapter XIV of Part V under the caption "Information to the Police and their powers to Investigate". The aforesaid section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has made out that the stand of the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha has no foundation. It is proper to express that to set the law in motion the substantive and procedural jurisdiction of an authority has to steal the eminence. The discipline of the disciplined police force requires that the matters are handled within the framework of statutory law. It is better that the local police whole heartedly devotes whole of its time towards the betterment of the law and order situation which is worsening with the passage of time and must absolutely always refrain from interfering in the legally allocated jurisdiction of other branches of the police which have to travel within its own respective spheres. In the instant case the Federal Investigation Agency can proceed in the matter under the Immigration Ordinance, 1979 and the Superintendent of Police with his subordinates in the local police has no jurisdiction to take up the matter as in the instant case. This is the crux of the matter to make me hold that the version of Ch. Alla-ud-Din petitioner that he is being unnecessarily harassed by the respondent Police Officer is correct. It seems that with the help of some influential person of the area Abdus Samad applicant got the assistance of the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha and his impugned working in the matter cannot be approved by this Court.
9. In the comments the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha has specificall, admitted that Ch. Alla- ud-Din writ petitioner took up the stand the he haa disinherited his son Rana Muhammad Anwar during the month of November, 1997 who had got published the said fact in a newspaper. This being the position how it can be expected from Ch. Alla-ud-Din that he can produce his son before the police. It shall not be out of place to express that Alla-ud-Din is not the accused of any case and he cannot be held liable for any misdeed of his son Rana Muhammad Anwar. In this regard it is proper to refer to the last sermon of our Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) known as "Khutha-tul-Hajja-tulWida" wherein our Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has very kindly expressed that "henceforth, the offender himself will be responsible for the offence; no son will be charged for the father's crime and no father will he punished for the crime committed by the son". It seems that the device was invented by the police to put the pressure upon Ch. Alla-ud-Din petitioner to vote for the Government group in the election of the Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Bhera District Sargodha. It would be instructive to express that the police should keep in mind that it is not their authority/jurisdiction to pressurize any person to vote against his own will and volition and rather the said type of working of the police is an offence under the Election Laws.
10. In the comments the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha expressed that he was willing to send the papers to the Federal Investigation Agency. I would express that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to hold the preliminary inquiry. Abdus Samad can move the Federal Investigation Agency, if desired and required by him. If such a working of the police is approved there would he administrative chaos as one Branch of Police Department shall start interfering/meddling in the jurisdiction of another branch i,e, Federal Investigation Agency. I, therefore, restrain the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha from sending the papers to the Federal Investigation Agency before whom Abdus Samad is held to be competent to proceed in accordance with law.
11. For what has been said above, I accept this writ petition and restrain the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha and the S.H.O. Police Station Bhera, District Sargodha from harassing and humiliating Ch. Alla-ud-Din writ petitioner. I would express that in such matters an aggrieved person can be compensated by directing the respondent Police Officers to pay the amount of compensation. However, I have refrained from passing any order in this regard so that Ch. Alla-ud- Din writ petitioner is in a safe position to lead his life in a salubrious manner in the area and further that it is expected that in future the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha shall not adopt the aforesaid type of working which not only offends the law of the land, the same is also violate of the human rights and legal ethics.
12. The parties are left to bear their own costs.