PLJ 2025 Islamabad 345
Present: Muhammad Asif, J.
Syed KAREEM-UD-DIN--Petitioner
versus
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (SSP)
ISLAMABAD and 2 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 1325 of 2025, decided on 6.5.2025.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
فوجداری ضابطہ اخلاق ، 1898 (1898 کا V)
ایس ایس ۔ 22-اے، 22-بی اور 561-اے --ایف آئی آر درج کرنے کی درخواست-- مسترد-- غیر قانونی حراست-بدنیتی پر مبنی عمل-گرفتاری کا کوئی وارنٹ نہیں-بنیادی حقوق کی خلاف ورزی-درخواست گزار کو پولیس نے بغیر کسی وارنٹ گرفتاری کے غیر قانونی تحویل میں لے لیا تھا ، اور اس کے قبضے سے کچھ بھی برآمد نہیں ہوا تھا ، جس سے یہ ظاہر ہوتا ہے کہ درخواست گزار منشیات کا کوئی غیر قانونی کاروبار کر رہا تھا-پولیس رپورٹ سے پتہ چلتا ہے کہ درخواست گزار کی طرف سے کوئی غیر قانونی کام نہیں پایا گیا اور اسے ریپٹ داخل کرنے کے بعد رہا کر دیا گیا تھا-درخواست گزار کو پولیس نے غلط طریقے سے حراست میں لیا تھا ، جو آئین کی ضمانت کے مطابق بنیادی حقوق کی سنگین خلاف ورزی تھی-مدعا علیہ ، ایک پولیس اہلکار ہونے کے ناطے ، ایک شہری کو بغیر کسی عمل کے آزادی سے محروم کرکے قانونی اختیار کی حدود سے باہر کام کیا-اس لیے ، پولیس اہلکار کی طرف سے ایک بدنیتی پر مبنی عمل کو نظر انداز نہیں کیا جا سکا-درخواست کی اجازت دی گئی ۔
----Art. 199--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 561-A--Application for registration of FIR--Rejected--Illegal detention--Malicious act--No warrant for arrest--Violation of fundamental rights--The petitioner was taken into illegal custody by police without any warrant of arrest, and nothing had been recovered from his possession, which showed that petitioner was doing any illegal business of narcotics--Police report showed that no unlawful act on part of petitioner was found and he was released after making entry of rapt--The petitioner was wrongfully detained by police, which was a gross violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed by Constitution--The respondent, being a police official, acted beyond bounds of legal authority by depriving a citizen of liberty without due process--Therefore, a malicious act on part of police official could not be brushed aside--Petition allowed.
[Pp. 348, 349 & 350] C, D, E & F
2011 SCMR 1420 ref.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
ص۔ 154-کمیشن آف کوگنیزیبل - سیکشن 154 ، فوجداری ضابطہ کی روشنی میں ، پولیس اسٹیشن کا افسر انچارج قانونی طور پر مقررہ رجسٹر میں قابل شناخت جرم سے متعلق معلومات ریکارڈ کرنے کا پابند ہے-نہ ہی افسر انچارج اور نہ ہی کسی اور اتھارٹی کو تحریری طور پر کم کرنے سے انکار کرنے کی صوابدید ہے ۔ سیکشن 154 ، فوجداری ضابطہ کے تحت برقرار رکھے گئے رجسٹر میں قابل شناخت جرم کے کمیشن سے متعلق کوئی معلومات ۔
----S. 154--Commission of cognizable-- In light of Section 154, Cr.P.C., Officer Incharge of a police station is legally bound to record information regarding a cognizable offence in prescribed register--Neither Officer In-charge nor any other authority has discretion to refuse to reduce into writing any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence in register maintained under Section 154, Cr.P.C. [P. 348] A & B
Mr. Muhammad Altaf Ahmed, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Sumaira Khursheed, State Counsel for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6.5.2025.
Order
Through instant petition, the petitioner has impugned the Order dated 16.01.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West (“the trial Court”), whereby the application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned Order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order and is entirely unlawful, arbitrary, contrary to the facts of the case, and reflects a poor understanding of the law. He argued that the trial Court’s duty was limited to examining whether the information presented disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. If so, the only proper course was to direct the concerned SHO to register an FIR. While deciding an application under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C., the trial Court could only assess whether the information disclosed a cognizable offence; it was not within the Court’s jurisdiction to delve into the truthfulness of the information. He further submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the mandatory provision of Section 154, Cr.P.C., which obliges the SHO to register an FIR if the information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, regardless of its veracity. The trial Court overlooked the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code, which does not permit the SHO or the Investigating Officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the truthfulness of the complaint before registering a case under Section 154, Cr.P.C. He emphasized that if a bare reading of the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the SHO is legally bound to enter the same into Register No. 1 without holding any prior inquiry. Therefore, the petition may be allowed.
3. The learned State counsel repelled the above submission and argued that the Order impugned by the petitioner is a well-reasoned Order, and the SSP, Islamabad, has also submitted his report in the instant matter. As per the report, no cognizable offence has been made out, therefore, the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is engaged in providing therapeutic treatment for conditions such as depression, mental disorders, and psychological issues using mushrooms. The petitioner’s company, Mystical Fungi Flora (Pvt.) Ltd., is duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). The petitioner has also maintained official records with all relevant regulatory and functional authorities of the State, including the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF), the Ministry of Narcotics Control, the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP), and the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (PCSIR), also known as the Council of National Scientific and Industrial Research (CNSIR). The petitioner has repeatedly approached the competent authorities through written correspondence, requesting the issuance of a license. However, the responses received indicated that there is no established procedure for such licensing in Pakistan, nor is the petitioner’s activity explicitly prohibited, banned, or declared illegal under any prevailing law.
6. On 11.12.2024, while the petitioner was at home with his family, a woman contacted him requesting mushrooms for medicinal purposes. The petitioner responded that the product could be collected from his residence. Later that evening, at about 8:00 pm, six to seven individuals, some of whom were police officials, arrived in three vehicles and surrounded the petitioner’s house. Without presenting a warrant, they forcibly entered the premises, threatened the petitioner, confiscated his personal belongings, and proceeded to unlawfully arrest and detain him. He was taken to Golra Sharif Police Station, where he was subjected to severe humiliation, harassment, and unlawful confinement for nearly three and a half hours. During this illegal detention, the petitioner was mentally tortured and subjected to interrogation without any legal basis. The officials demanded access to his mobile phone, property details, and other personal information. Upon his refusal, they adopted a hostile, arrogant, and abusive demeanour, which reflects a gross misuse of authority and a blatant dereliction of official duty.
7. The petitioner filed an application for registration of FIR against the corrupters/perpetrators before the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, which was turned down. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, filed an application under Section 22-A & B, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court, which was also dismissed with the reasoning that no cognizable offence has been made out.
8. Whenever a Justice of the Peace is seized of a complaint under Section 22-A of the, Cr.P.C., the principles and procedures outlined in Section 154 of the, Cr.P.C. become applicable. The Justice of the Peace must exercise a prudent mind to determine whether the facts disclosed constitute a cognizable offence. If it is concluded that a cognizable offence has been committed, the Justice of the Peace is bound to direct the local police of the concerned station within whose jurisdiction the offence occurred to register the case by lodging an FIR under the relevant provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case.
9. In light of Section 154, Cr.P.C., the Officer Incharge of a police station is legally bound to record information regarding a cognizable offence in the prescribed register, previously known as the First Information Report (FIR). The mere registration of an FIR does not, in any manner, limit the authority of the investigating officer to probe the veracity of the information provided. If, during the investigation, the officer concludes that the allegations against the accused are false, concocted, or baseless, and no supporting evidence is found, the officer may lawfully recommend the release of the accused under Section 169, Cr.P.C. and place the accused’s name in Column No. 2 of the final report submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C., thereby suggesting discharge from the charges. However, it must be emphasized that neither the Officer In-charge nor any other authority has the discretion to refuse to reduce into writing any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence in the register maintained under Section 154, Cr.P.C.
10. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was taken into illegal custody by the police without any warrant of arrest, and nothing has been recovered from his possession, which shows that the petitioner was doing any illegal business of narcotics. The actions of the police raise serious concerns about whether they possess the authority to arrest individuals based solely on incorrect information, and whether they have ample powers to tarnish the reputation of a respectable citizen in society.
11. The police report submitted before the learned trial Court clearly shows that the petitioner was arrested and detained for three hours at Golra Police Station, even though no case was against him. It further states that, upon finding no unlawful act on the part of the petitioner was found and he was released after making entry of Rapt No. 30 dated 12.11.2024 in the register. This report itself constitutes an admission by the police officials of the petitioner’s illegal detention, demonstrating that they misused their authority to harass, humiliate, threaten, and unlawfully detained him to obtain an unlawful advantage.
12. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Badar v. Azmat Bashir (2011 SCMR 1420), wherein it has been held that:
S. 491. Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3). High Court while setting the detenu at liberty had imposed special costs of Rs. 50,000/- upon a police Sub-Inspector and of Rs. 25,000/- upon the police Inspector, vide impugned order. Detenu was recovered by the Bailiff of the Court from a room of the police station, who had been arrested by the Sub-Inspector and kept under illegal detention for twenty days without having produced him before any Court of law and also subjected him to physical torture, which fact was supported by his medical report. Sub-Inspector had later on handed the detenu over to the Inspector, Investigation incharge. Accused petitioners could not produce any piece of evidence before High Court showing the arrest of detenu being legal. Detenu himself had explained the entire incident regarding his detention, before High Court in the presence of both the petitioners, who could neither refute the statements of the detenu and the Bailiff, nor contradict the medical report. Impugned Order being legal, just and apt to the facts and circumstances of the case was not open to any exception and the findings whereof did not call for any interference by Supreme Court. However, amount of costs imposed on the petitioners was slightly on higher side and the same was reduced to Rs. 25,000 in case of the Sub-Inspector and Rs. 10,000 in case of Inspector in the interests of Justice. Petitions were converted into appeals and partly allowed accordingly.
13. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was wrongfully detained by the police, which was a gross violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. It is sufficient to note that the police officer unlawfully confined an innocent citizen in the lock-up of the police station, demonstrating blatant abuse of authority and disregard for the rule of law. Such conduct is wholly unacceptable and cannot be justified or overlooked. Law enforcement agencies are duty-bound to uphold the law and
respect the constitutional rights of citizens. The respondent, being a police official, acted beyond the bounds of legal authority by depriving a citizen of liberty without due process. Therefore, a malicious act on the part of the police official cannot be brushed aside.
14. In view of the foregoing, the instant petition is allowed and the Impugned Order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West is hereby set aside. The Station House Officer (SHO) concerned is directed to register an FIR against the proposed accused persons and submit a copy of the FIR before this Court within 07 days after receipt of this Order.
(Y.A.) Petition allowed.
0 Comments