Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----Ss. 154, 155(1)----Registration of FIR----Statutory duty of police----Police officer is legally bound to register an FIR upon receiving information relating to a cognizable offense----Failure to record such information constitutes neglect of duty----Statutory obligation does not depend on the discretion of the police officer. Cited Cases: Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. PLD 2007 SC 539 Younas Abbas v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal PLD 2016 SC 581 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----Ss. 22-A, 22-B----Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace----Maintainability of petition----Petition under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR is not maintainable unless complainant first approaches the concerned SHO and then the higher police hierarchy (Superintendent of Police)----Only upon failure of redressal can the Justice of Peace be approached. Cited Cases: Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. PLD 2007 SC 539 Younas Abbas v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal PLD 2016 SC 581 (c) Administration of justice ----Fair hearing----Both parties agreed that the complainant would appear before the SHO and record his statement along with the respondent’s version----If a case is found to be made out, the SHO shall register it in accordance with law. Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions to SHO to record the complainant’s statement, including the respondent’s version, and register a case if warranted under the law.

Summary: FIR Quashed ---- Definition of cognizable and non-cognizable offences ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----Ss. 154 & 155---Registration of FIR---Distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offenses---Scope---Petitioners, being police officers, were accused of negligence in investigation and were subsequently charged under Ss. 167 and 193, P.P.C., through FIR registered on the orders of Inspector General of Police---Validity---Sections 167 and 193, P.P.C., being non-cognizable offenses, did not empower the police to register an FIR without prior approval of a Magistrate---Under Ss. 154 & 155, Cr.P.C., only cognizable offenses warranted immediate registration of an FIR, while in cases of non-cognizable offenses, police officials were required to make an entry in the daily register (Roznamcha) and seek permission from a Magistrate before proceeding further---Police exceeded its jurisdiction by directly registering an FIR without referring the matter to the Magistrate---FIR quashed accordingly. ---- Cited Cases: Mst. Malka Jan v. IGP NWFP Peshawar and 2 others (PLJ 2000 Peshawar 3) Haji Rehman SHO and 3 others v. Provincial Police Officer, Government of KPK Peshawar and 3 others (2012 P.Cr.LJ Peshawar 1526) Muhammad Ashiq and 2 others v. SHO, PS, Northern Cantt. Lahore and 3 others (2005 YLR 1879) Muhammad Shafi v. SHO and others (2012 YLR 828) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----S. 155(2)---Investigation of non-cognizable offenses---Requirement of prior Magistrate approval---Scope---Held, where a police officer investigated a non-cognizable offense without obtaining prior permission from a Magistrate, such action was in blatant violation of statutory provisions and constituted an abuse of process of law---Police could only enter the information in their records and refer the matter to a Magistrate for further action, but could not proceed with registration of an FIR independently---Violation of such mandatory provisions warranted intervention by the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction---FIR quashed accordingly. Cited Cases: Muhammad Anwar and others v. Muhammad Ilyas Begum and others (PLD 2013 SC 255) (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – ----Art. 4---Fundamental rights---Protection of law and due process---Scope---Every citizen had an inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law, and where an act by a public authority violated statutory provisions, the High Court had the power to intervene in its constitutional jurisdiction---Police, by registering a case in violation of mandatory legal provisions, infringed upon the fundamental rights of the petitioners---Where law prescribed a specific procedure, it had to be followed in that manner or not at all---FIR quashed accordingly. (d) Administration of Justice – ----Police excesses---Judicial oversight---High Court’s power to quash proceedings initiated without legal sanction---Scope---FIR lodged without jurisdiction and in violation of express statutory provisions could not be allowed to stand, as it would set a precedent for abuse of police powers in matters involving non-cognizable offenses---Petition allowed and FIR quashed. Disposition: Petition allowed, FIR No. 197 dated 07.03.2014 under Ss. 167 & 193, P.P.C., Police Station Khazana, Peshawar, quashed.

Summary: Legislative history of book mentioned in section 154 of Cr.P.C., and way out if FIR stood registered in a non-cognizable offence. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 154, 155, 157, 173 & 196B Registration of FIR—Non-cognizable offence—Preliminary investigation—Scope—FIR was registered under S. 295A, P.P.C., a non-cognizable offence, based on a private complainant’s application—Petitioner contended that such registration was a nullity in law as S. 295A, P.P.C. requires a complaint by the Provincial or Federal Government under S. 196, Cr.P.C.—Held, registration of FIR under a non-cognizable offence is not a nullity per se but an irregularity, which can be rectified through due process—Police were bound to conduct preliminary investigation under S. 196B, Cr.P.C., and the report must be placed before the competent government authority before proceeding further—High Court ruled that police may investigate non-cognizable offences only with prior sanction of a Magistrate, but if cognizable offences were added, the investigation would be valid under S. 157, Cr.P.C.—Petitioner’s prayer for quashing the FIR was declined, as the matter required further legal process and scrutiny. (b) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 295A Hate speech—Religious decree (“Fatwa”)—Insulting religious beliefs—Legal consequences—Petitioner accused of issuing a religious decree declaring a sect as non-Muslim, allegedly insulting religious beliefs and causing communal unrest—Contention that an individual complainant could not initiate prosecution under S. 295A, P.P.C., and only the Provincial or Federal Government could file a complaint—Held, while procedural irregularities existed, legal scrutiny under S. 196B, Cr.P.C., was essential before quashing the case—If the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) directs a preliminary inquiry and determines that an offence under S. 295A, P.P.C. is disclosed, the matter must proceed for government sanction—However, if the offence is found to be cognizable under other provisions, such as S. 8/9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, police could proceed with investigation without government complaint under S. 196, Cr.P.C.. (c) Administration of Justice: ----Police functions—Procedural compliance—Quashing of FIR at the initial stage Judicial scrutiny of FIR registration and police investigation—Court extensively analyzed the procedural framework of FIR registration, police powers, and statutory limitations under Cr.P.C. and Police Rules, 1934—Held, police officials cannot act as mere conduits for FIR registration but must apply judicial mind to assess whether a cognizable offence is disclosed—FIR in a non-cognizable offence may not be void ab initio but must be validated through a procedural mechanism—Court declined to quash the FIR at the preliminary stage, observing that legal and procedural avenues remained open for rectification or continuation of the proceedings. (d) Cognizance and Prosecution of Offences: ----Ss. 196, 196B, Cr.P.C. & S. 8/9 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 Jurisdiction of Magistrate—Sanction of Government—Addition of cognizable offences—Court laid down that if an offence under S. 295A, P.P.C. is alleged, preliminary investigation is mandatory under S. 196B, Cr.P.C., before seeking government sanction—However, if an Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) offence is attracted, the bar under S. 196, Cr.P.C. does not apply, and the case may proceed before the Anti-Terrorism Court—Police have discretion to modify charges upon investigation, and the Magistrate may stay proceedings under S. 230, Cr.P.C. if required sanction from the government is pending. ----Disposition: Petition for quashing of FIR was dismissed—Court ruled that procedural mechanisms were available for addressing defects in FIR registration—Matter was directed to be processed in accordance with S. 196B, Cr.P.C., with guidance from the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) and relevant prosecutorial authorities. ----Cited Cases: • ALI RAZA v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2017 Islamabad 64) • ATTA MUHAMMAD DESHANI v. District Police Officer (2019 P Cr. L J 275) • MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. The State (1980 P Cr. L J 742) • SHABBIR HUSSAIN v. The State (2011 P Cr. L J 1631) • Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. (AIR 2014 SC 187) • JAVED IQBAL v. The State (2016 SCMR 787) • Mst. SUGHRAAN BIBI v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595)