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)