2021 P Cr. L J 1079
[Balochistan]
Before Rozi Khan Barrech, J
HAYATULLAH ---Petitioner
Versus
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF BALOCHISTAN POLICE, QUETTA and 3
others ---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Quashment No. 13 of 2020, decided on 10th August, 2020.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 154 ---Information in cognizable cases ---Scope ---Section 154, Cr.P.C., casts a statutory
duty upon the Officer -in-Charge of Police Station to enter information regarding commission
of any cognizable of fence---If the information is given orally to an Officer -in-Charge of the
Police Station he shall reduce it into writing and read it over to the informant and every such information 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--- Section 154, Cr.P.C. is mandatory and leaves no scope for exercise of any
discretion by the police officer concerned in recording the First Information Report or in
refusing to record the same.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 157 & 154--- Information in cognizable cases ---Procedure where cognizable offence
suspected ---Scope ---Section 157, Cr.P.C. comes into play when the matter has bee n initiated
under S. 154, Cr.P.C. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 157, 156 & 154---Information in cognizable cases ---Investigation into cognizable
cases ---Procedure where cognizable cases suspected ---Scope ---Procedure to be adopted by
the police officer where he suspects commission of any cognizable offence is provided in S.
157, Cr.P.C.--- Section 157, Cr.P.C., has to be read along with the provisions of S. 156,
Cr.P.C. ---Section 157, Cr.P.C., is subject to two provisos: first proviso authorizes the
Officer -in-Charge to proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make investigation
on the spot when the information as to commission of any offence is given against any
person by name and the case is not of serious nature; second proviso authorizes him not to investigate the case if there is no sufficient ground for entering into an investigation.
(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 157, 156 & 154---Information in cognizable cases ---Investigation into cognizable
cases ---Procedure where cognizable cases suspected ---Scope ---Provisions of S. 157, Cr.P.C.
indicate that the powers exercisable by the officer -in-charge of a police station cannot be
resorted to unless report made to him in respect of commission of a cognizable offence is
reduced into writing and be read over to the informant duly entered in a book to be kept by
such officer as described within the meaning of S. 154, Cr.P.C. ---Mere incorporating
contents or substance of the report in the roznamcha of police stati on made to the officer -in-
charge of the police station by the informant in respect of commission of a cognizable
offence would not be a compliance of the mandate of the law as envisaged by S. 154, Cr.P.C., therefore, before resorting to any of the provisions of S. 157, Cr.P.C., the Officer -in-
Charge of the Police Station is duty bound to register the report as provided by S. 154, Cr.P.C. and thereafter, proceed under S. 156, Cr.P.C. or under any of the provisions of S. 157, Cr.P.C. as the facts and circumst ances of the case may admit or warrant.
Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt and others PLD 2007 SC
539; Abida Parveen v. Deputy Superintendent of Police and others 2012 PCr.LJ 1861 and Mst. Shehnaz v. Station House Officer Sariab Police Station, Quetta and 2 others 2003 YLR
1941 ref.
(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 561 -A---Inherent powers of High Court ---Quashing of FIR ---Eventualities mentioned.
FIR can be quashed only in the following eventualities:
i) If from the reading of the FIR it does not make out any cognizable offence.
ii) If FIR has been registered without lawful authority and jurisdiction; and
iii) If any civil liability is given the shape of criminal liability.
(f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 561 -A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction and inherent
powers of High Court ---Scope ---Quashing of FIR ---Scope ---High Court does not interfere in
the case when it is at investigation stage, either by exercising cons titutional jurisdiction or its
inherent powers under S. 561- A, Cr.P.C. ---Idea behind the principle is that the police should
be allowed to perform its duty in its own sphere to reach at a definite conclusion with regard to complicity or innocence of the ac cused ---Investigating Officer and incharge of the police
station have been invested with powers under Ss. 169 & 173, Cr.P.C. to submit their report with their opinion, if evidence in the case is found deficient or there are no reasonable grounds to justify the forwarding of accused for trial ---Accused, on submission of report
under S. 173, Cr.P.C., for trial, may seek his acquittal under S. 249- A or 265- K, Cr.P.C., at
any stage from the Trial Court ---If the proceedings are pending before any court and it
appears that there is abuse of process of court, only then it can make an order for quashing of
proceedings ---Quashing of FIR is ordered only in exceptional cases when the same is
registered without lawful authority.
Jamil Ramzan and Jameela Panezai for Petitioner.
Nemo for the Complainant.
Ms. Shumaila Iftikhar, State Counsel for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th July, 2020.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ---The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this
Court under section 561 -A, Cr.P.C., with the following prayers: -
"In the light of submissions, above the Hon'ble Court has pleased to declare the
inquiry conducted by the official respondents are illegal, void ab initio. It is further be declared that on the basis of illegal inquiry the FIR bearin g No.02 of 2020 Police
Station Saddar was lodged have no legal authenticity and the same is liable to be quashed. This will meet the ends of justice".
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.12.2019 the complainant Fareedullah son of
Abdul Rashid filed a n application before SHO Police Station Saddar Quetta for registration
of FIR with the allegation that on 23.03.2018, he purchased a Honda City car bearing registration No.ABT -360, Engine No.L1317- 2627804, Chassis No.NFBGM 154X9R107907,
gray in color, mode l 2010, from one Hayatullah son of Abdullah at Al -Quresh Motor
Showrooms in presence of witnesses Amjad, Muhammad Naseem, Tayyab in worth of Rs.8,50,000/ - who handed over registration book of the same. On 17.09.2019 his father
proceeded towards Lahore in t he said vehicle for 'Tabligh' at Patoki the police officials
stopped the vehicle and after checking the same the police of Patoki told that the said vehicle has stolen from Lahore and it requires in case FIR No.558 of 2016 for an offence under section 381- A, P.P.C. and the police taken the said vehicle into possession. He thereafter
contacted Hayatullah, but he used delay tactics. It is further alleged in the FIR that the file of the said vehicle was forged.
3. On the written report of the complainant, the SHO Police Station Saddar Quetta
conducted inquiry under section 157(2), Cr.P.C., and after completion of inquiry on 05.01.2020 FIR No.02 of 2019 for an offence under sections 471, 468, 463, 420, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Saddar Quetta.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and
gone through the available record with their assistance.
5. In the present case, a cognizable offence was reported to the SHO Police Station
Saddar Quetta but instead of registering a case under section 154, Cr.P.C., he recorded
statement of the complainant and started an inquiry under section 157(2), Cr.P.C.
6. First of all I intend to dilate upon the course necessary for registration of a crime
report. In the Criminal P rocedure Code, section 154, Cr.P.C., deals with this question. It
would be advantageous to reproduce the same for ready reference, which reads as under: -
"Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally
to an officer I ncharge of a 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 reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it...".
7. Bare perusal of the section supra reveals that a statutory duty casts upon officer
Incharge of Police Station to enter information regarding commission of any cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer Incharge of the 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 reduced 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. This provision, mandatory as it is, leaves no scope for exercise of any discretion by the police officer concerned in recording the First Information Report or in refusing to record the same.
8. As the main crux of lis between the parties revolves around section 157, Cr.P.C,
therefore, it would be advantageous to reproduce the supra section, which reads as under: -
"Procedure where cognizable offence suspected. ---(1) If from information received or
otherwise an officer incharge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the sa me to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of
such offence upon a police report, and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of
his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the Provincial Government may, by general or special order, pres cribe in this behalf to proceed, to the spot, to
investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender: Provided as follows:
(a) Where local investigation dispensed with. When any information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer incharge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an invest igation on the spot;
(b) Where police officer incharge sees no sufficient ground for investigation. If it appears to the officer incharge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to subsection (1), the officer incharge of the police station shall state in his said report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub section, and , in the case
mentioned in clause (b), such officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Provincial Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated."
9. Bare reading of section 157(1), Cr.P.C. wherein it is mentioned that an officer
Incharge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is
empowered under section 156 to investigate, depicts that section 157, Cr.P.C. comes i nto
play when the matter has been initiated under section 154, Cr.P.C.
10. The procedure to be adopted by the police officer where he suspects commission of
any cognizable offence is provided in section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These
provisions have to be read along with provisions of section 156 which authorizes the officer -
in-charge of a police station to investigate without the order of a Magistrate any cognizable
offence where a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the loca l limits of such
station would have power to inquire into or to try under the provisions of Chapter XV, Cr.P.C. relating to the place of inquiry or trial. Section 157 provides that 'if, from information received or otherwise, an officer Incharge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall pr oceed in person or shall depute
one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the Provincial Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the cas e, and. if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and
arrest of the offender. This provision is subject to two provisos. The first proviso authorizes
the officer in charge not to proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an
investiga tion on the spot when the information as to the commission of any offence is given
against any person by name and the case is not of serious nature. The second proviso authorizes him not to investigate the case if there is no sufficient ground for entering on an
investigation.
11. Bare perusal of provisions of section 157, Cr.P.C., indicate that the powers
exercisable by the officer Incharge of a police station in the given facts and circumstances of a case cannot be resorted to unless report made to him in respect of commission of a
cognizable offence is reduced into writing and be read over to the informant duly entered in a book to be kept by such officer as prescribed within the meaning of section 154 Cr.P.C. Mere incorporating contents or substance of t he report in the Roznamcha of the Police Station
made to the Officer Incharge of the Police Station by an informant in respect of commission of a cognizable offence would not be a compliance of the mandate of the law as envisaged by section 154, Cr.P.C., t herefore, before resorting to any of the provisions of section 157,
Cr.P.C., the officer Incharge of the Police Station is duty bound to register the report as provided by section 154, Cr.P.C. and thereafter, to proceed under section 156, Cr.P.C. or under any of the provisions of the section 157, Cr.P.C. as the facts and circumstances of the
case may admit or warrant, consequently, I; may observe that the officer Incharge of the Police Station exercised the powers vesting in him not in accordance with law b y resorting to
provisions of section 157, Cr.P.C. directly without the formal registration of the case as contemplated by section 154, Cr.P.C. in respect of the commission of a cognizable offence. In this connection the cases of Muhammad Bashir v. SHO, Oka ra Cantt and others (PLD
2007 SC 539), Abida Parveen v. Deputy Superintendent of Police and others (2012 PCr.LJ 1861) and Mst. Shehnaz v. SHO Sariab Police Station, Quetta and 2 others (2003 YLR 1941).
12. As far as the contention of the learned counsel fo r the applicant that the case is based
upon fabricated and false story, is concerned, it is question of facts which cannot be resolved
under section 561- A of Cr.P.C., it is for trial Court to determine truthfulness or falsehood of
the facts after recording the evidence, if any. The FIR can be quashed only in the following
eventuality: -
"(i) If from the bare reading of the FIR it does not make out any cognizable offence.
(ii) If the same has been registered without lawful authority and jurisdiction.
(iii) If any civil liability is given the shape of criminal liability".
13. The petitioners seek quashment of FIR, which is still under investigation. It is settled
law that the High Court should not interfere in the case, when it is. at investigation stage, eithe r by exercising constitutional jurisdiction or its inherent powers under section 561- A,
Cr.P.C. The idea behind the principle is that the Police should be allowed to perform its duty in its own sphere and to reach out at a definite conclusion with regard t o complicity or
innocence of the accused. The Investigating Officer and Incharge of Police Station have been vested with powers under sections 169 and 173, Cr.P.C. to submit their report with their opinion, if evidence in the case is found deficient or the re are no reasonable grounds to
justify the forwarding of accused for trial. On submission of report under section 173,
Cr.P.C. for trial the accused may seek his acquittal under section 249- A or 265- K, Cr.P.C. at
any stage, from the trial Court. If the pr oceedings are pending before any Court and it
appears that there is abuse of process of Courts only then it can make order for quashment of
proceedings. Quashment of FIR is ordered only in exceptional cases when the same is registered without lawful author ity.
14. The points agitated at the bar, require appreciation and analysis of evidence, which
exercise can only be undertaken by the trial Court after full -dress trial of the case. While
exercising inherent powers, this Court would only, interfere, when there is any jurisdictional defect, patent violation of some provision of law, the allegation as contained in complaint or FIR, even if believed, no case is made out and the continuation of proceedings would amount to sheer abuse of process of the Court, or an endeavour is made to enforce civil liability through the machinery of criminal Court/law. No such infirmity has been pointed out in the instant case, which may warrant interference of this Court, for exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561 -A, Cr.P.C.
In the light of what has been discussed above, finding no force in this petition,
therefore, it is hereby dismissed.
SA/173/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.