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.