' SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- This is an Intra-Court Appeal against the order, dated 30-3-1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No,9430/Q of 1998, whereby the said petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution for the quashment of F.I.R. No,244 of 1997, dated 7-10-1997 under section 324/440/506(2)/148/149, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Sadar Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan. The quashment was sought on the ground that the said case was registered under the orders of respondent No,1, Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalalpur Pirwala for which he had no authority under the law to direct the registration of the case. The learned Single Judge in his judgment after dealing with the contentions of the appellant expressed the view that even if such a direction of the Assistant Commissioner was ignored and kept aside and a simple application had been presented to the S.H.O. Even then he was competent to register a case.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated his contention as was raised by him before the learned Single Judge. It is contended that after separation of judiciary from the executive cognizance of an offence can only be taken either by a Judicial Magistrate or the S.H.O. Concerned himself can register a case. Reference has been made to section 190, Cr.P.C. And section 156(3) of the Code. It is further contended that since the Assistant Commissioner is no more competent to exercise powers of a Judicial Magistrate, he could not order the registration of the case. Reference has also been made to Mst. Kausar Parveen v. Ahmad Ali Zafar, J.M. Kabirwala, District Khanewal PLD 1997 Lah. 208 and Allah Ditta Hamdani v. I.-G. And others PLD 1998 Lah. 193 to support the above contention.
4. We have given our thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel but find that there is no real substance in the contentions raised by him.
5. Section 154, Cr.P.C. Obliges the officer in charge of a Police Station to record every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Such an information is commonly caned as F.I.R., the object and purpose of which is to set in motion the law and its machinery against the culprits. See PLD 1985 Lah. 288 and PLD 1968 Lah.
464. This duty of the Station House Officer is not dependent upon any order or direction from any superior State functionary. The source of information may be any. See PLD 1988 Kar.
521. The right to report the violation of law belongs to every member of the public including a Magistrate 1979 SCM R 112 and 1990 PCr.LJ 1811.
This is the duty which S.H.O. Is to perform and proceed in accordance with law. In the instant case the Assistant Commissioner has not taken cognizance of the matter himself and case was registered by the S.H.O. Of the concerned police station. The endorsement on the application made by him i,e, "S.H.O., Police Station Sadar to register a case under the relevant law" does not in any way restrict the S.H.O. In the performance of his lawful function. The said direction was qualified with the words "under the relevant law". It is, thus, S.H.O. Who has registered the case in accordance with law and who is obliged to conduct the investigation justly and fairly without being influenced by any extraneous factor.
5. The precedents relied upon by the learned counsel in Mst. Kausar Parveen case (supra) is not applicable as in the said case a Judicial Magistrate of Kabirwala had issued search warrants of the petitioner who was residing at that time in Mian Channu and the point was as to whether a Judicial Magistrate, Kabirwala could issue such a warrant when the petitioner was not residing within his territorial jurisdiction. However, some observations were made regarding the functions of the Judicial Magistrate and a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the executive hierarchy which observations are not applicable in the instant case. The other precedent cited by the learned counsel viz. Allah Ditta Hamdani case (supra) rather supports the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the S.H.O. Is under legal obligation to register a case, conduct the investigation and collect all the evidence about the alleged occurrence. The registration of the case having been done by the S.H.O. Concerned, he is obliged to conduct the investigation and to proceed in accordance with law. The case registered (FAR.), therefore, cannot be ordered to be quashed simply for the reason that the complainant in the first instance made an application to the Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Magistrate who sent the same to the S.H.O. To act under the law.
6. We do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. This appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.