PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1238
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 561-A--Inherent power of High Court--Quashment of FIR--Invoked the jurisdiction of High Court--Petitioners seek quashment of F.I.R., which is still under investigation--Held: It is settled law that the High Court should not interfere in the case, when it is. at investigation stage, either by exercising constitutional jurisdiction or its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The idea behind the principle bases when the same is registered without lawful authority. The points agitated at the bar, require appreciation 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 to 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 me case is found deficient or there 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 proceedings are pending before any Court and it appears that there is abuse of process of Courts only than it can make order for quashment of proceedings. Quashmeri of FIR is ordered only in exceptional and analysis of evidence, which exercise can only be undertaken by the trial Court after full-dress trial of the case. While exercising u 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 F.I.R., 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 deavour is made to enforce civil liability through the machinery criminal Court/law. No such infirmity has been pointed out in instant case, which may warrant interference of High Court, for exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.—Petition was dismissed. [P. 1243] A & B
M/s. Jamil Ramzan and Jameela Panezai, Advocates for Petitioner.
Non present for Complainant.
Ms. Shumaila Iftikhar, Counsel for State.
Date of hearing: 15.7.2020.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1238
[Balochistan High Court, Quetta]
Present: Rozi Khan Barrech, J.
HAYATULLAH--Petitioner
versus
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF BALOCHISTAN POLICE, QUETTA and 3 others--Respondents
Crl. Misc. Quashment No. 13 of 2020, decided on 10.8.2020.
Judgment
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
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.12.2019 the complainant. Fareedullah son of Abdul Rashid filed an application before SHO PS 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, model 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 the 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, PPC 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 PS 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, PPC was registered at PS 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 PS 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 Procedure Code, Section 154, Cr.P.C., deals with this question. I 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 Incharge 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 same 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, prescribe 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 investigation 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 into 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 local 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 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, prescribe 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. 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 investigation 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 the 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., therefore, 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 by 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, Okara Cantt and others (PLD 2007 SC 539), Abida Parveen v. Deputy Superintendent of Police and others (2012 PCrLJ 1861) and Mst. Shehnaz v. SHO Sariab Police Station, Quetta and two others (2003 YLR 1941).
12. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for 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.”
In the light of what has been discussed above, finding no force in this petition, therefore, it is hereby dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Petition dismissed
0 Comments